It is most vital to note that in a significant step with far reaching consequences, the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ruplal Rana v. State of Jharkhand in A.B.A. No.2439 of 2025 that was pronounced just recently on 11.06.2025 has come down heavily taking potshots on a Judicial Magistrate in Hazaribagh for remanding a 66-year-old aged man to custody in a complaint case, despite landmark Supreme Court rulings that protect an accused from arrest after cognizance is taken.

It cannot go unnoticed that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ananda Sen who authored this notable judgment minced absolutely just no words to hold that the Magistrate had failed to follow the binding decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI which laid down very clear procedures for summoning accused persons in complaint cases where cognizance is already taken. It is also worth mentioning that the Bench lamented that:
This is unfortunate and unwarranted" after noting that despite extensive judicial training, the Magistrate’s actions showed lack of awareness of basic bail jurisprudence and personal liberty safeguards.

It must be disclosed here that the anticipatory bail application was filed by four residents of Hazaribagh district in connection with a complaint case involving charges under several provisions of the IPC including Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for cheating), 452 (trespass) and 120B (conspiracy). It must be noted that the application had already been disposed of in April 2025 with the Court directing the petitioners to appear before the Magistrate who would then deal with their case in accordance with law. It was further revealed that on June 11, however, the case was mentioned again before the High Court after it emerged that petitioner Rupal Rana had appeared before the Magistrate but was remanded to custody most astoundingly despite citing the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.

While referring to several binding precedents of the Apex Court, the Bench noted that once a complaint case proceeds to cognizance and summons are issued, arrest is not automatic. It was also noted that the accused is to be summoned and bail is to be considered without custody. It deserves mentioning that the Bench observed while quoting paragraph 3 of the 2021 judgment in Satender Kumar Antil case that:
Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided."

Most crucially, the Bench noted that the Magistrate acted in complete disregard of these settled principles. The Bench also while taking potshots lamented that, "These are the cases where personal liberty of the citizen is at stake. The Magistrate should very well be sensitized in these type of issues, specially about the judgments which relate and deal with personal liberty.

It is misfortune that in spite of steps taken by Jharkhand Judicial Academy, results have not been achieved. Despite sensitization programmes, these types of orders are being passed, without application of mind and without applying the law by the Magistrates. This is unfortunate and unwarranted." It directed that a copy of the order be immediately sent by fax to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, the Principal District Judge and the Director of the Jharkhand Judicial Academy. It was also further directed by the Bench in its order that:
The Director… shall impart extensive training online to this particular Judicial Magistrate at least for two days after Court hours, and sensitise the Magistrate about the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court."

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ananda Sen sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that:
This application being A.B.A. No.2439 of 2025 which arose out of a complaint and was filed after taking cognizance, was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025. Order dated 21.04.2025 reads as hereunder:-

"This is an application filed by the petitioners praying for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of sections 482 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioners have been allegedly implicated in a criminal case registered for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 420, 406, 467, 468, 504, 506, 380,451,452 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1635 of 2024, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
3. The present case arises out of the complaint and cognizance has already been taken. When the cognizance has been taken and the 2 petitioners have been summoned, there is no apprehension of arrest. The petitioners have to appear before the trial court which has issued summons. Further, since the case arises out of complaint, there is no question of investigation.
4. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned court below who will consider his case as per law.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 3 that:

1. Learned counsel representing the petitioners while mentioning submitted that one of the petitioners i.e. petitioner No.1 – Ruplal Rana, aged about 66 years, appeared before the learned Magistrate, in compliance of the summons.
2. He submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, (2022) 10 SCC 51, and (2024) 9 SCC 198, was also placed before the Magistrate at the time of his appearance.
3. It is his contention that in utter disregard of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, learned Magistrate had taken the person in custody by rejecting the bail application.
4. Learned counsel also submitted that, being sceptical, the other petitioners chose not to appear. Thus, he prayed that order dated 21.04.2025 may be modified accordingly, considering the development which had taken place.

Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 5 that:

• This Court requests learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae.

Do also note, the Bench further notes in para 6 that:

• In the second half, learned counsel representing the petitioner on instruction submitted that initially petitioner No.1 – Ruplal Rana was taken in custody and was released on bail by the learned Sessions Court.
• He submits that in utter disregard of the guidelines in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Magistrate has passed the order taking the petitioner in custody.

It is worth noting that the Bench while citing recent and relevant case law points out in para 7 that:

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, in para-3, has categorized the offences in four categories.
• Category-A relates to cases "after filing of charge-sheet/complaint and taking cognizance". It is a separate category and cannot be merged with Category-B & D.
• The procedure for such cases is well defined. The quote from para-3 is as follows:

  Categories/Types of Offences

  1. Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in Categories B and D.
  2. Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.
  3. Offences under Special Acts with stringent bail conditions (e.g., NDPS, PMLA, UAPA, Companies Act).
  4. Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.
      

  Requisite Conditions

  1. Not arrested during investigation.
  2. Cooperated throughout investigation, including appearances before the IO when called.
  3. (Refer: Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676)
      

  Category A Procedure

  1. Ordinary summons at 1st instance, allowing appearance through lawyer.
  2. If no appearance, bailable warrant may be issued.
  3. Non-bailable warrant (NBW) on failure to respond to bailable warrant.
  4. NBW may be cancelled/converted to bailable warrant on undertaking to appear.
  5. Bail applications on appearance may be decided without custody or with interim bail.
      

  Category B/D

  1. On appearance, bail application to be decided on merits.
      

  Category C

  1. Same as B/D, with additional bail conditions under special statutes (e.g., NDPS, PMLA, UAPA, etc.).

Notably, the Bench clearly specifies in para 8 stating that:
From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that in cases on complaint where cognizance has been taken and summons are issued, even the Court may permit appearance through Lawyer. Further the bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided. In the entire judgment, there is nothing to suggest that in a complaint case, after cognizance, any weightage is to be given to the gravity of offence under the Sections of Indian Penal Code."

Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 9 holding that:
Thus, prima facie I am of the opinion that the Magistrate being totally unaware of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has dealt with this matter. These are the cases where personal liberty of the citizen is at stake. The Magistrate should very well be sensitized in these type of issues, specially about the judgments which relate and deal with personal liberty. It is misfortune that in spite of steps taken by Jharkhand Judicial Academy, results have not been achieved. Despite sensitization programmes, these types of orders are being passed, without application of mind and without applying the law by the Magistrates. This is unfortunate and unwarranted."

Quite significantly, the Bench then recalls in para 10 observing that:
Be it noted that in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, at para-11.8, it has been mentioned that authorizing detention without recording reasons by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court."

It cannot be lost on us that the Bench then points out in para 11 observing that:
In this case, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Magistrate could not have taken in custody on appearance."

Quite ostensibly, the Bench then deems it fit to hold in para 12 succinctly stating that:
Since the petitioner is praying for modification of order dated 21.04.2025 passed in this case, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application for modification of this order, which will be taken up and further order will be passed in this case."

Further, the Bench then directs in para 13 holding that:
List this case in the next week, under the heading "Orders", along with the modification application which will be filed by the petitioners."

Furthermore, the Bench then also directs in para 14 that:
Name of Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh (Amicus Curiae), shall henceforth be reflected in the cause list."

Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by encapsulating in para 15 what constitutes the cornerstone and backbone of this notable judgment postulating and directing precisely that:
Let a copy of this order be immediately faxed to the concerned Judicial Magistrate and the Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh and also to the Director, Judicial Academy to impart extensive training online to this particular Judicial Magistrate at least for two days after Court hours, and sensitize the Magistrate about the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51, Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, reported in 2024 (9) SCC 198 and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273."

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh