Jharkhand High Court Criticizes Magistrate For Ignoring SC Guidelines On Personal Liberty, Orders Training
The Jharkhand High Court has voiced serious concerns in a case arising out of a complaint, where the Magistrate failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding personal liberty and bail procedures.
The bench observed with disappointment that despite conducting sensitivity programs by the Jharkhand Judicial Academy, some magistrates continue to remain unaware of the legal framework laid down by the Supreme Court, especially in cases involving arrest after cognizance is taken.
The bench of Justice Ananda Sen held, “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.”
The bench further stated, “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“.
These observations were made in an application seeking anticipatory bail arising out of a complaint. The application, which was filed after cognizance was taken, was disposed of earlier on April 21 2025. At the time, the court held that since the case was complaint-based and cognizance had been taken, there was no apprehension of arrest and the petitioners were merely required to appear before the court.
However, on subsequent hearing, the petitioner, aged 66, approached the court stating that his bail application was rejected by the Magistrate and he was taken into custody.
Amicus Curiae Advocate Jitendra Shankar Singh informed the court that the Petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions Court after being taken into custody. He argued that the Magistrate’s order violated the clear guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577].
The court reiterated the categorisation of offences and procedural safeguards laid down in the Satender Kumar Antil case (Supra), particularly for category A offence, which involves cognizance taken after filing of the complaint or chargesheet.
The bench, after examining the case noted, “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“, the bench added.
Thus, the court directed the Director of Judicial Academy to impart extensive training to the aforesaid Magistrate for at least 2 days after court hours.
For Petitioner: Advocate Randhir Kumar
For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kr. Mishra
Case Title: Ruplal Rana v The State of Jharkhand (A.B.A. No.2439 of 2025)
