2026:JHHC:18129 --1-- A.B.A. No. 3216 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3216 of 2026 ---- 1. Ramesh Kumar Thakur @ Ramesh Thakur, aged about 44 years, son of Late Narendra Thakur, resident of Kunjika Enterprises, Basant Vihar, Harmu, PO – Doranda, PS – Argora, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. Rahul Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Subodh Kumar, resident of House No. L-24, First Floor, Harmu Housing Colony, Harmu, PO – Doranda, PS – Argora, District – Ranchi 3. Prabhakar Thakur, aged about 34 years, son of Late Narendra Thakur, resident of Flat No.201, Bhagwati Apartment, Patel Chowk, Harmu, PO – Doranda, PS – Argora, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Siddhartha Ranjan, Advocate :- Ms. Shipra Shalini, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Malsi Pathak, Advocate ---- 02/22.06.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No.51 of 2021, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 406/34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 2026:JHHC:18129 --2-- A.B.A. No. 3216 of 2026 the petitioners have installed lights in Budh Bazar Do-Talla Panchayat and the light has worked properly for five to six years. He further submits that after five to six years of installation the case has been lodged alleging that some of the lights are not working properly. He then submits that the petitioners were not provided the maintenance work of the said light which has been installed by the petitioners five to six years back. He next submits that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as disclosed in paragraph No.28 of the petition. He also submits that even the final form has been submitted whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial, however, the learned Court differing with the said final form has been pleased to take cognizance. 4. In the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have produced the certified copy of the cognizance order dated 12.05.2022 which has been taken on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the police have already submitted the final form, however, learned Court differing with the final form has been pleased to take cognizance. 6. There is no doubt that learned Court after differing with the final form can take the cognizance, however, in the order taking cognizance prima facie materials are required to be disclosed in such a situation. On perusal of the cognizance order dated 12.05.2022 what are the prima facie materials against the petitioners that is not reflected in the order taking cognizance and 2026:JHHC:18129 --3-- A.B.A. No. 3216 of 2026 further for the lights installed five to six years back the case has been lodged alleging that some of the lights are not working and if such an allegation is there prima facie it is a case of deficiency in service and for that a separate act is already there in the form of Consumer Protection Act. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to provide anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are hereby directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today, and in the event of their surrender/arrest, the petitioners, above named, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No.51 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 22.06.2026 Sangam/