Jharkhand High Court orders training for Magistrate who ignored Supreme Court bail guidelines

The Jharkhand High Court on June 11 came down heavily on a Judicial Magistrate in Hazaribagh for remanding a 66-year-old man to custody in a complaint case, despite Supreme Court rulings that protect an accused from arrest after cognizance is taken [Ruplal Rana v. State of Jharkhand]..The Bench of Justice Ananda Sen observed that the Magistrate had failed to follow binding decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which laid down clear procedures for summoning accused persons in complaint cases where cognisance is already taken. “This is unfortunate and unwarranted,” the High Court said, after noting that despite extensive judicial training, the Magistrate’s actions showed lack of awareness of basic bail jurisprudence and personal liberty safeguards..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). 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..On June 11, however, the case was mentioned again before the High Court after it emerged that petitioner Ruplal Rana had appeared before the Magistrate but was remanded to custody despite citing the Satender Kumar Antil judgment. His counsel submitted that the Magistrate had refused bail and that other petitioners, fearing arrest, had not appeared..Referring to several binding precedents of the top court, the High Court noted that once a complaint case proceeds to cognizance and summons are issued, arrest is not automatic. The accused is to be summoned and bail is to be considered without custody.“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 observed, quoting paragraph 3 of the 2021 judgment in Satender Kumar Antil. .Justice Sen noted that the Magistrate acted in complete disregard of these settled principles.“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 High Court noted in the order. .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.“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,” the order read. .The petitioners were represented by advocate Randhir Kumar. The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Pankaj Kumar Mishra. .[Read Order]