Compliance with bail procedures as per Supreme Court directives is essential for granting anticipatory bail.

CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.

-----

03/ 09.06.2025 Heard the parties.

2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 4 82 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been preferred by the petitioner apprehending his arrest for offences registered under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 127(1), 304, 351(2), 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending before learned A.C.J.M., Hazaribag in connection with Lohsinghna PS Case No. 157 of

2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire dispute arose between the husband and the wife, as the wife is actively involved in the social media by creating reels, which is creating matrimonial discord between the parties. He submits that the petitioner had never demanded any amount as dowry.

4. During course of argument he submits that the offences are punishable for seven years or less, and in fact this case is covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another ” reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. He also submits that till date the petitioner did not receive any notice under section 35(3) of BNSS.

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

6. After going through the impugned order and the FIR, I find that the case is registered under sections 115(2), 117(2), 127(1), 304, 351(2), 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act . The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, VI, Hazaribag doesn’t remotely suggest as to whether the conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another ” reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 has been complied with or not. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Satender Kumar Antil” (supra) the conclusions have been laid down in paragraph no. 100. Paragraph no. 100.3 of the aforesaid judgment clearly mandates that Courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of section 41 and 41A of Cr.PC [now section 35(3) of BNSS]. Any non-compliance will entitle the accused for grant of bail. In my view, this satisfaction of the Court in respect of compliance of section 41 and 41A of Cr.PC [now section 35(3) of BNSS] must be reflected in the impugned order of regular bail or anticipatory bail, while the same is being decided by the Trial Court concerned or the Sessions Judge. This is necessary and mandatory. Paragraph no. 100.3 of the judgment makes it clear that non-compliance would entitled the accused for grant of bail. Thus, it is more necessary for the Courts concerned to incorporate in their orders, be it regular bail or anticipatory bail, about the compliance of the provisions of the aforesaid sections.

7. Considering what has been held above when I go through the impugned order, I do not find that the provisions of section 41A of Cr.PC [now section 35(3) of BNSS] has been complied with.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even notice under section 35(3) of BNSS corresponding to 41A of Cr.PC has not yet been issued to the petitioner. The case arises from an FIR which was registered on 06.09.2024 and the impugned order is dated 21.03.2025. Once the FIR has been lodged and is sent to the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer has to submit a report whether it is necessary to take the accused in custody or not.

9. In the case of “ Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another ” reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, later on relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Md. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and Another ” reported in (2023) 8 SCC 632 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph