2025:JHHC:15804 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 6647 of 2024 ------ Rewati Raman Das @ Raju, aged about 58 years, son of Late Laxmikant Das, Resident of Dayaansh Pahad, Tola Charkipahari, P.O.- Brahmandiha, P.S.-Topchanchi, District-Dhanbad. … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Pankaj Das, son of Jagram Das, Resident of Panderpala, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O._B. Polytechnic, P.S.-Bankmore, (Bhuli), District-Dhanbad … … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. For the resp. No. 2 : Ms. Nalini Jha, Advocate ----- 03/ 16.06.2025 Heard the parties. 2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 11627 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. Initially an FIR in Bankmore, (Bhuli OP) P.S. Case No.12 of 2023 was being instituted on complaint on the ground that on pretext of providing job in BCCL, money was taken by the petitioner. During course of investigation, final report was submitted in favor of the petitioner in Bankmore, (Bhuli OP) in P.S. Case No.12 of 2023 showing the case to be closed due to lack of evidence in land dispute. Further, there was a recommendation to initiate the case against the informant under Section 182 of the I.P.C. The informant thereafter filed a protest 2025:JHHC:15804 2 petition which was converted into a complaint. In the said complaint, cognizance was taken and, thereafter notices were issued against the petitioner. 4. When cognizance has been taken and notices have been issued, the petitioner should have appeared before the Trial Court in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 as well as the observation made in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in (2024) 9 SCC 198. 5. The petitioner has rushed to this Court by seeking Anticipatory Bail. 6. Considering the fact that case is covered by the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), I direct the petitioner to appear before the Magistrate who will pass an appropriate order taking into consideration the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 as well as the observation made in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in (2024) 9 SCC 198. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Rashmi/Cp-3