The Jharkhand High Court has strongly criticized a judicial magistrate in Hazribagh district, despite the Supreme Court guidelines for sending a 66 -year -old man to judicial custody in the case of a personal complaint, that there is bail in such circumstances.
The High Court ordered a statewide training for all magistrates and Chief Judicial Magistrates to ensure compliance with constitutional security.
Local resident Baleshwar Rana filed a complaint against Hazaribagh Judicial Magistrate (First Class) against Ruble Rana and three others in 2024, accused of cheating, criminal conspiracy and trespass.
The magistrate directed the petitioners to appear before the trial court, as the case arose from the complaint and not an arrest investigation.
Raple Rana appeared before the magistrate in Hazaribagh in May, but was sent to judicial custody, in which his bail application was rejected.
Supreme Court verdict in Satendra Kumar Antil vs CBI – was first distributed in 2021 and repeated in later years – says that in cases of complaints like these, accused persons should not be arrested and they should be granted bail or interim bail on appearance.
Advocate Randhir Kumar, a lawyer of the petitioners, told The Indian Express that Rappal Rana was detained for about 15 days in the case of complaint, until the Summer Vacation Judge gave him regular bail.
The story continues below this advertisement
He said: “After the magistrate rejected our anticipatory bail argument, we contacted the High Court on April 21. The court said that since the case was arranged from the complaint and cognizance was already taken, there was no need for custodial action.
“After granting bail, we informed the High Court on 11 June that the magistrate had disregarded both the apex court and the High Court,” he said.
High Court Judge Justice Anand Sen passed a detailed order on June 18, in which the High Court revised its earlier order to clearly direct the trial court to accept bail bonds from the remaining petitioners on its presence.
The court also paid attention to a “related pattern”, given that many magistrates and Chief Judicial Magistrates in Jharkhand disregard the decisions of the Supreme Court, including Satendra Kumar Artil vs CBI and Arnesh Kumar vs Bihar State.
The story continues below this advertisement
“Magistrates are not yet sensitive, despite the efforts taken by the Jharkhand Judicial Academy. I am repeatedly coming during orders that ignore the binding directions of the Supreme Court … It is most unfortunate that in the year 2025, the magistrates are not in a position to understand and implement the judges that have been passed by the SC.”
The court has ordered the Judicial Academy, Jharkhand to immediately organize statewide sensitization workshops for all judicial magistrates and CJMs.
The petitioners have now been given relief, and the trial court has been directed to proceed to the Apex Court to proceed to the repeated constitutional security measures.
,
