Afroz Ansari @ Md. Afroz Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand

Ananda Sen, J.

This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Gumla Mahila P.S. Case No.4 of 2024, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 417, 498-A, 504, 34 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case is presently pending before the Court of learned CJM, Gumla.

Learned A.P.P. representing the State and learned counsel representing the informant oppose the anticipatory bail application.

This is a case in one of the offences under Sections 498A IPC, where it is alleged that the petitioner along with his family members has tortured his wife and demanded dowry.

During the course of argument, learned counsel representing the petitioner takes this Court towards para-10 to 13 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the opposite party – State. In the said paragraphs, it has been specifically stated that notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner and co-accused persons have produced their respective affidavits in their defence also.

When notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. has been issued, natural presumption is that the police does not want to take the petitioner in custody. That being so, there is no imminent threat of the petitioner being arrested.

In this case, since there is no imminent threat of arrest, this Anticipatory Bail Application is premature. Further, notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. has been issued and the petitioner has cooperated with the same, it can be said that there is no apprehension of arrest of the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observation, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned, who will pass appropriate order in terms of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue.