NASIMUDDIN SHEKH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court
Case type
CRIMINAL MISCELLENOUS PETITION
Decided on
23-03-2026
<div> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b>( 2026:JHHC:8141 )</b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> Cr.M.P. No.627 of 2025</b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> ------</b> <b> </b><br /> Nasimuddin Shekh, aged about 55 years old, son of Late Saifuddin <br /> Shekh, resident of Naya Tola, Harindanga Bazar, Pakur, Post Office-<br /> Bhawanipur, Police Station-Pakur (Town), District-Pakur. <br /> … Petitioner <br /> <br /> <b><i>Versus</i></b> <br /> <br /> 1. The State of Jharkhand <br /> 2. Lambodar Mandal, son of Late Khoka Mandal, resident of village-<br /> Murgadanga, Post Office-Hiranpur, Police Station-Hiranpur, <br /> District-Pakur. <br /> … <br /> Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <b>------</b> <i> </i> <i> </i> <i> </i><br /> For the Petitioner : Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate <br /> For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P. <br /> For the O.P. No.2 : None <br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> ------ </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>P R E S E N T </b><br /> <b>HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b><i> </i></b><br /> <b><i>By the Court:-</i></b> <b> </b> Heard the parties. <br /> 2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party <br /> no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of <br /> repeated calls. <br /> <br /> 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the <br /> jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 (3) of the BNSS, 2023 with the <br /> 1 <br /> <b>Cr. M.P. No.627 of 2025</b><br /> <br /><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b>( 2026:JHHC:8141 )</b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 01.02.2025 passed in A.B.P. <br /> No.67 of 2025 arising out of Pakur Town P.S. Case No.327 of 2024 <br /> involving the offences punishable under Section 420 &amp; 406 of the Indian <br /> Penal Code by which the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur granted <br /> anticipatory bail to the petitioner on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- <br /> with two sureties of the like amount with the condition that the petitioner <br /> shall deposit the amount of Rs.21,000/- in the Nazarat, Civil Court, Pakur <br /> and it was further ordered that upon such deposit being made, the Court <br /> below is directed to issue notice to the complainant/informant and <br /> handed over the said amount to the complainant/informant after proper <br /> verification and identification. <br /> <br /> 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR of the case <br /> was registered on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner being <br /> referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section <br /> 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to the police. It is next submitted that the <br /> petitioner was never granted opportunity of being heard and without the <br /> same; behind the back of the petitioner, the anticipatory bail application <br /> has been allowed. It is next submitted that granting of anticipatory bail <br /> with deposit of money has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme <br /> Court. It is lastly submitted that thus the prayer as prayed for by the <br /> petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. <br /> 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand <br /> vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant <br /> Cr.M.P. <br /> 2 <br /> <b>Cr. M.P. No.627 of 2025</b><br /> <br /><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b>( 2026:JHHC:8141 )</b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <br /> 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after <br /> carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is <br /> pertinent to mention here that since the FIR has been registered on the <br /> basis of the complaint being referred to police under Section 156(3) of <br /> Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, the <br /> petitioner being the complainant/informant ought to have been issued <br /> notice before granting anticipatory bail. It is also pertinent to refer to the <br /> order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in <br /> the case of <b>Dinesh Kumar Sonthalia vs. The State of Jharkhand &amp; </b><br /> <b>Another</b> in <b>Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10496 of 2025, </b> wherein the <br /> Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a similar matter order that notice be <br /> issued to the complainant on whose complaint the First Information <br /> Report has been registered the issue notice before granting anticipatory <br /> bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of cases has <br /> deprecated granting of anticipatory bail or the condition of depositing the <br /> amount of money to be paid to the complainant/informant. <br /> 7. In view of the settled principle of law as discussed above, the <br /> impugned order dated 01.02.2025 passed in A.B.P. No.67 of 2025 arising <br /> out of Pakur Town P.S. Case No.327 of 2024 involving the offences <br /> punishable under Section 420 &amp; 406 of the Indian Penal Code by which <br /> the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur granted anticipatory bail to the <br /> petitioner is quashed and set aside. <br /> 3 <br /> <b>Cr. M.P. No.627 of 2025</b><br /> <br /><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b>( 2026:JHHC:8141 )</b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b> <b> </b><br /> <br /> 8. The learned Sessions Judge, Pakur is directed to pass fresh order in <br /> the said case in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner <br /> herein; who is the informant/complainant of the said case. <br /> 9. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent. <br /> <br /> <b>(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J</b> . <b>) </b><br /> High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi <br /> rd<br /> Dated the 23 of March, 2026 <br /> AFR/ Abhiraj <br /> <br /> Uploaded on 26/03/2026 <br /> <br /> <br /> 4 <br /> <b>Cr. M.P. No.627 of 2025</b><br /> </div>