IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.247 of 2025 ------ Govind Murmu, aged about 37 years S/o Late Dulu Ram Murmu, resident of Vill.-Baghmara VTC Sankarda, P.O. Shankarda, P.S.- Potka, Dist.-East Singhbhum .... .... …. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 22-01-2025 Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Dumaria P.S. Case No.17 of 2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 308 (4), 352, 351(2) and 351 (3) of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but only because a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 has been issued to him, hence, the petitioner has been filed this anticipatory bail application. It is pertinent to mention here that under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, Police Officer issues a notice directing a person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made i.e. to appear before him, when there is no requirement of such accused person being arrested with the case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that merely because a notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, 2023 has been issued that does not mean there is apprehension of petitioner of him being arrested in connection with any non-bailable offence. In absence of any justifiable reason to exercise the power under Section 482 of the BNSS 2023, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Rohit/