Jharkhand HC Slams Magistrate Ignoring SC Bail Guidelines: “Unfortunate & Unwarranted”
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
The Jharkhand High Court criticised a Hazaribagh Magistrate for ignoring Supreme Court Bail guidelines and sending a 66-year-old man to custody in a complaint case. The court called the action “unfortunate and unwarranted” during the hearing.
The Jharkhand High Court criticized a Judicial Magistrate in Hazaribagh for remanding a 66-year-old man to custody in a complaint case, despite Supreme Court rulings that safeguard an accused from arrest after cognizance has been taken.
Justice Ananda Sen’s bench noted that the Magistrate had disregarded binding Supreme Court decisions, particularly the ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which outlines clear procedures for summoning accused individuals in cases where cognizance has already been established.
Also Read: Supreme Court: Judges Must Be Humble, Polite & Humane in Conduct
Observing that the Magistrate’s actions indicated a lack of awareness of fundamental bail jurisprudence and the safeguards for personal liberty, despite having undergone extensive judicial training, the High Court remarked,
“This is unfortunate and unwarranted,”
The anticipatory bail application was submitted by four residents of Hazaribagh district in relation to a complaint involving charges under several IPC provisions, including Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for cheating), 452 (trespass), and 120B (conspiracy).
This application had been resolved in April 2025, when the Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Magistrate, who would handle their case according to the law.
However, on June 11, the case was revisited in the High Court after it was revealed that petitioner Ruplal Rana had appeared before the Magistrate but was remanded to custody despite referencing the Satender Kumar Antil judgment.
His counsel argued that the Magistrate had denied bail, causing other petitioners to refrain from appearing for fear of arrest.
Citing several binding precedents from the Supreme Court, the High Court emphasized that once a complaint case progresses to cognizance and summons are issued, an arrest is not automatic. The accused should be summoned, and bail should be considered without requiring custody.
Referencing paragraph 3 of the Satender Kumar Antil judgment from 202, the Court stated,
“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,”
Justice Sen noted that the Magistrate acted with complete disregard for these established principles.
The High Court remarked in its order,
“These are the cases where personal liberty of the citizen is at stake. The Magistrate should be sensitized to these issues, especially regarding judgments that pertain to personal liberty. It is unfortunate that despite efforts by the Jharkhand Judicial Academy, the desired results have not been achieved. Despite sensitization programs, such orders continue to be issued without proper consideration of the law. This is unfortunate and unwarranted,”
The Court ordered that a copy of the ruling be promptly sent by fax to the relevant Judicial Magistrate, the Principal District Judge, and the Director of the Jharkhand Judicial Academy.
The order stated,
“The Director… shall provide extensive online training to this particular Judicial Magistrate for at least two days after Court hours, and sensitize the Magistrate about the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,”
The petitioners were represented by advocate Randhir Kumar, while the State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kumar Mishra.
Case Title: Ruplal Rana v. State of Jharkhand
