Dilip Mandal @ Dilip Kumar Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand

Ananda Sen, J.

Heard the parties.

This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioners apprehending their arrest for offences registered under Sections 302, 201, 313, 406, 498 A, 323, 341, 354 IPC.

Learned A.P.P. representing the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Though the complaint has been lodged under Sections 302, 201, 313, 406, 498 A, 323, 341, 354 IPC, however, cognizance has been taken only under Section 498 A / 34 IPC.

Admitted fact is that the case arises out of a complaint. In a complaint case, there is no question of custodial interrogation. The only fact which the Court has to be assured of is whether the accused will face the trial or not or whether there is any chance of tampering with the evidence.

The impugned order does not suggest any of the aforesaid situation. Thus, in a complaint case, since there is no necessity of custodial interrogation, I am inclined to release these petitioners on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application stands allowed. The petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the event of their surrender or arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned ACJM, Sahibganj, in connection with C.P. Case No.509 of 2021, subject to the condition that one of the bailers should be a close relative of the petitioners and other should be a resident of State of Jharkhand, having sufficient landed property in his name or in the name of his ancestors in which he is having share and to that effect, he has to file an affidavit before the Trial Court indicating his share in the property.