2025:JHHC:12160 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2509 of 2025 ----- Amit Kumar Pandey, S/o Vijay Kumar Pandey, R/o Williams Town, Post Office & Police Station Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s). Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, A.P.P. …...... 06/ 24.04.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioner praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Sections 482 and 484 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 apprehending his arrest for the offences under Sections 406/420 of IPC, in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No.50 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. 3. The allegation is that the petitioner was contacted by the informant. It is the case of the informant that the petitioner promises to sale a tractor of Mahindra company to the informant, but after taking money he has not sold the tractor rather he is trying to sell a tractor of inferior quality and of other company. 4. The impugned order, which has been challenged is dated 21.11.2024 passed in A.B.P. No.329 of 2024. I have gone through the impugned order which runs in two pages, passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka. In the order, it has been mentioned that interim bail was granted to the petitioner, on the ground that he wanted to contact the informant for the purpose of settlement and negotiation for delivery of tractor. The Court also held that thereafter, he could not inform the Court as his wife fell ill and this petitioner was busy with her treatment. Further it has been held that the extension of time 2025:JHHC:12160 was prayed for on the ground that there is threat from the informant as a result of which, he could not even come to the court on that date. The learned Single Judge refused the prayer for extension and dismissed the anticipatory bail application on that ground itself. 5. The ground on which the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka has rejected the anticipatory bail is unknown in law. Since the petitioner could not appear for compromise, the anticipatory bail was rejected. This cannot be a ground. The merit of the case has not been considered nor even touched by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka, thus, the consideration for dismissing the anticipatory bail is beyond comprehension. Thus, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, I set aside the order dated 21.11.2024 and revive the A.B.P. No.329 of 2024. 6. I direct the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka to hear the said A.B.P. on merit and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order as per law taking into consideration the merit of the case. The order should be passed preferably within three weeks from today after hearing the parties. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka will also give proper opportunity of hearing to the informant, before deciding the anticipatory bail application. 7. Till the A.B.P. No.329 of 2024 is disposed of, the petitioner will not be arrested. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be faxed to the Court concerned immediately. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./