2025:JHHC:14871 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2803 of 2025 ----- 1. Majharul Haque, son of Abul Kalam, resident of Station Road, Village and P.O Chitarpur, P.S. Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh. 2. Manoj Mahato, son of Akhileshwar Mahto, resident of village Majhiladih, P.O Birajpur, P.S. Barwa Adda, District Dhanbad. 3. Ram Tahal Saw, son of Mahavir Sao, resident of village Bendagi (Ujjaina), P.O Rasoiya Dhamna, P.s. Barhi, District- Hazaribag. 4. Sunil Yadav, son of Halku Yadav, village Hisra (Bharbha Jarhi_, P.O Nawadih, P.s. Chainpur, District- Palamau. ...... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mukesh Kumar Singh, son of Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh, resident of Vananchal Dental College and Hospital, P.O Farathiya, P.S. Garhwa, District- Garhwa. … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. For Opp. Party No. 2 Mr. Razaullah Ansari and Shahid Khan, Advocates. …..... 05/09.06.2025: This anticipatory bail application has have been filed by the petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioners have been allegedly implicated in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 541 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under section(s) 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120B of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and had gone through the documents, annexed along with this application. 3. Opportunity was given to the State and the informant to oppose the bail, which they availed and opposed. 4. After perusing the impugned order, I find that it is an admitted fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case against the petitioners. After submission of the charge-sheet, summons were issued to the petitioners but the petitioners did not appear before the Court, though the counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not received summons. 5. Be that as it may, since the summons have already been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner should answer the summons and appear before the Court concerned, which is the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of the judgment rendered 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 as it has already been held that in a case where after cognizance, summons have been issued or even non-bailable warrant has been issued and the accused thereafter appears answering the summons, the order issuing the warrant should be recalled. 6. Once the petitioners appear, their case will be considered strictly in compliance of the guidelines laid down 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. 7. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Anu/-C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)