The Court reaffirmed that a named accused with direct allegations and criminal antecedents is not entitled to anticipatory bail, even under the new legal regime of the BNS, 2023. This judgment follows existing precedent and signals that prior evaluative criteria for anticipatory bail remain fully applicable. It thus serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Jharkhand and persuasive precedent elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | A.B.A./5235/2025 of RAM KUMAR RAY ALIAS BHAIRAV YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010286592025 |
| Date of Registration | 04-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Rejected |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Jharkhand; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure—Anticipatory Bail—Application under BNS, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether direct allegations and criminal antecedents bar the grant of anticipatory bail under BNS, 2023 |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that where the petitioner is named in the FIR with direct allegations, including demand for levy and assault, and has criminal antecedents, anticipatory bail ought not to be granted. The fact that the BNS, 2023, now governs the substantive offences makes no change in the evaluative threshold for anticipatory bail. Applications for anticipatory bail must be assessed on the gravity of allegations and the applicant’s criminal record. The petitioner’s claim of being falsely implicated due to the existence of two FIRs was not found sufficient to override these core criteria. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was named in the FIR for allegedly demanding levy from the informant and assaulting him after entering an office, causing head injury. The petitioner also has criminal antecedents, and the complaint is supported by direct allegations. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, and potentially the Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The decision explicitly applies anticipatory bail principles to cases registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, confirming the continuity of judicial approach.
- Direct allegations and the presence of criminal antecedents remain the decisive considerations for anticipatory bail, regardless of statutory codification changes.
- Lawyers should recognize that arguments based solely on alleged impossibility (such as being present at two places at once) are insufficient in the face of substantive direct accusations and prior criminal conduct.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The Court carefully examined the FIR and noted that the petitioner was expressly named with direct allegations of having demanded levy and assaulted the informant, resulting in head injury. It further highlighted the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s arguments regarding impossibility due to simultaneous FIRs, reiterating that such factual claims do not outweigh direct allegations and antecedents in the context of anticipatory bail. Based on these grounds, and following settled authority, the Court held that no anticipatory bail could be granted in such circumstances. The fact that the allegations are now prosecuted under the BNS, 2023, was found irrelevant to the bail standard.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner contended that false allegations had been made.
- Noted the existence of two FIRs, arguing it was impossible to be present at two different places at the same time.
- Sought grant of anticipatory bail on these grounds.
State
- Strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Pointed to the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Factual Background
The petitioner was accused in Balidih P.S. Case No. 50/2025 of offences under Sections 127(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 308(3), 303(2), 109, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. The FIR alleged that he demanded illegal payments (“levy”) and assaulted the complainant inside an office, causing head injuries. The prosecution highlighted the petitioner’s history of criminal cases. The anticipatory bail application was made before arrest.
Statutory Analysis
The Court referenced the relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under which the FIR was registered, but made no substantive reinterpretation or novel construction of those provisions. The judgment confirms that the procedural criteria for anticipatory bail remain consistent with earlier CrPC jurisprudence, notwithstanding statutory updates to substantive offences.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or innovations were identified in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed the settled criteria for anticipatory bail even under the BNS, 2023, providing clear continuity with prior law.