Jharkhand High Court Raps Magistrate For Unlawful Remand Of 66-Year-Old Despite SC Guidelines On Bail In Complaint Cases
The Jharkhand High Court had criticised a Judicial Magistrate in Hazaribagh for unlawfully remanding a 66-year-old man to custody in a complaint case, despite clear directives laid down by the Supreme Court designed to safeguard an accused person’s liberty once cognizance has been taken.
The issue came before the High Court following the filing of an anticipatory bail application by four individuals from Hazaribagh, including the petitioner. They had been named in a complaint case involving serious charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, such as Section 420 (cheating), Section 467 (forgery), Section 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), Section 452 (house trespass), and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy). The High Court had previously disposed of the bail application in April 2025, instructing the petitioners to appear before the concerned Magistrate, who was then expected to handle their case as per legal procedure.
However, when petitioner complied with the High Court’s order and appeared before the Magistrate, he was unexpectedly remanded to custody, despite his counsel citing the Supreme Court’s Judgment in Satender Kumar Antil case in his defense. This development caused alarm, prompting the matter to be urgently brought to the High Court’s attention once again. The remaining petitioners, fearing arrest, refrained from appearing before the Magistrate following this incident.
A Bench of Justice Ananda Sen expressed deep dissatisfaction with the Magistrate’s conduct, pointing out that the order of remand violated binding Supreme Court rulings, particularly the Judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. That ruling laid down explicit procedures for summoning accused individuals in complaint cases where cognizance has already been taken, stating that such accused are not to be arrested automatically and that bail considerations must be addressed without first taking them into custody.
Advocate Randhir Kumar appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kumar Mishra appeared for the Respondents.
The High Court called the Magistrate’s actions “unfortunate and unwarranted,” emphasizing that despite the extensive judicial training provided, there appeared to be a serious lack of understanding regarding basic principles of bail jurisprudence and the protection of personal liberty.
The Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s settled position that in complaint cases where summons have been issued following cognizance, an accused is not to be arrested unless absolutely necessary. Bail should be considered on appearance, and if not granted immediately, interim protection should be offered until the bail application is properly decided.
Quoting directly from paragraph 3 of the 2021 Satender Kumar Antil decision, the Court emphasised, “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.”
The Court held, “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.”
The Court further said, “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…”
Cause Title: Ruplal Rana & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
