Jharkhand High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by accused which was rejected taking into consideration the fact that it was a complaint case and summons were already issued; the single Judge Bench of Ananda Sen, J., noting the subsequent custody of the accused person by the Magistrate despite the Supreme Court’s guidelines on anticipatory bail in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773, highlighted the Magistrate’s lack of awareness and necessity of judicial officers being sensitized to judgments concerning personal liberty. Therefore, the Court directed the State Judicial Academy to provide extensive training to the concerned Magistrate in Supreme Court’s guidelines enshrined in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
Background
A complaint case was filed against the accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 420, 406, 467, 468, 504, 506, 380, 451, 452, and 120B/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The accused had applied for anticipatory bail which was rejected by an order dated 21-04-2025, on the ground that the case was a complaint case and the Magistrate after taking cognizance had already summoned the accused. He was further directed to appear before the concerned Magistrate. Despite complying with the summons and appearing before the Magistrate, bail application of the accused was rejected, and he was taken into custody. Aggrieved by this, the accused filed the present application to modify the 21-04-2025 order.
Analysis vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s bail guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra)
The Court relied on Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court had categorized offences in four categories and had outlined the procedure for bail for all four categories. The Court noted that for Category A offences which was related to the situations “after filing of charge-sheet/complaint and taking cognizance”, the Supreme Court’s guidelines clearly stated that bail applications of such accused persons, upon appearance, “may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided”. The Court further noted that Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) did not suggest giving weight to the gravity of the offence under the IPC in complaint cases after cognizance had been taken.
The Court opined that, “The Magistrate was totally unaware of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court” and had dealt with the matter incorrectly. The cases involving personal liberty require Magistrates to be well-sensitized to relevant judgments. The Court expressed disappointment that despite the steps taken by the Jharkhand Judicial Academy, such orders were still being passed “without application of mind and without applying the law”.
The Court noted that in Arnesh Kumar (supra), it has been mentioned that authorizing detention without recording reasons by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall lead to departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
The Court held that, given the Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) judgment, the Magistrate should not have taken the accused into custody upon appearance.
The Court directed the accused to file an application for modification of the order dated 21-04-2025.
The Court directed that a copy of the order be immediately faxed to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, the Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh, and the Director, Judicial Academy, to impart “extensive training online” to this particular Judicial Magistrate for at least two days after court hours, specifically to sensitize the Magistrate about the judgments in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) and Arnesh Kumar (Supra).
[Ruplal Rana v. State of Jharkhand, A.B.A. No. 2439 of 2025, decided on 11-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For Respondents: Pankaj Kr. Mishra, A.P.P.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
