The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1857 of 2020 ------ 1. Om Prakash Pandey, aged about 44 years Son of Late Someshwar Pandey, Resident of – Near Zila School Baludih, Bishunpur, Bishnupur P.O. B.Polytechnic & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 2. Urerndar Pandey @ Urendra Pandey, aged about 46 years Son of Late Someshwar Pandey, Resident of – Near Zila School Baludih, Bishunpur, Bishnupur P.O. B.Polytechnic & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 3. Jitendra Kumar Ray @ Jitendra Kumar Pandey (written in complaint petition as Jitendar Pandey), aged about 43 years Son of Late Someshwar Pandey, Resident of – Near Zila School Baludih, Bishunpur, Bishnupur P.O. B.Polytechnic & P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 4. Jitu Gope, aged about 47 years, Son of late Dipu Gope, resident of Near Hari Mandir, Baludih, Bishnupur, P.O. B.Polytechnic & P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 5. Ajay Kumar Roy @ Ajay Kumar Rai, aged about 47 years, son of Late Basudev Roy, resident of 15 A Bishnupur near Zila School, Bishunpur P.O. B.Polytechnic & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
Legal Reasoning
6. Sushil Kumar Sinha @ Munna, aged about 68 years, Son of Sri Ramchandra Prasad, Resident of Vill Kashiyatand P.O. Kalyanpur and P.S. Barwadda, Dist Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Dr. Krishna Singh, aged about 35 years, son of late Prameshwar Singh, Resident of -Victory Colony P.O. Dhansar and P.S.-Jharia, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 1 Cr. M.P. No.1857 of 2020 … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR and order dated 10.06.2019 by which the warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No.390 of 2015 corresponding to GR Case No.5584 of 2015. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not press the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding and confine their prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 10.06.2019 only. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding is rejected as not pressed. 4. So far as the order dated 10.06.2019 passed in the said Jharia P.S. Case No.390 of 2015 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the said order, the learned ACJM, Dhanbad has observed that notice has already been issued to the accused persons, hence, it allowed the prayer of the I.O. to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioners who are the accused persons of this case. 2 Cr. M.P. No.1857 of 2020 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 submits that in Para-56, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that Court should properly balance both personal liberty and social interest before issuing warrants. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relief upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 791 wherein in Para-12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that Courts have to be extra cautious and careful while directing issuance of non- bailable warrant of arrest else wrongful detention would amount to denial of constitutional mandate envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioners were evading their arrest and in the absence of the same, the learned ACJM, Dhanbad had committed a grave illegality by issuing the non-bailable warrant of arrest, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the petitioners were deliberately evading their arrest, so the learned ACJM, Dhanbad has rightly ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest against them on the prayer of the Investigating Officer, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 3 Cr. M.P. No.1857 of 2020 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 73 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia vests the power upon the Magistrate of First Class to direct a warrant of arrest to any person within his local jurisdiction for arrest inter alia of any person who is accused of non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. 10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the petitioners are accused of committing non-bailable offences punishable under Sections 467 & 387 of Indian Penal Code, but there is no satisfaction recorded by the learned ACJM, Dhanbad that the petitioners are evading their arrest and in the absence of such essential ingredients, certainly the learned ACJM, Dhanbad committed a grave error by issuing the warrant of arrest against the petitioners by the order dated 10.06.2019 in the said Jharia P.S. Case No.390 of 2015. Accordingly, the same being not in accordance with law, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by learned ACJM, Dhanbad in Jharia P.S. Case No.390 of 2015, is quashed and set aside. 12. The learned ACJM, Dhanbad may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 13.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. 14. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 02.11.2020, is vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th of November, 2024 AFR/ Abhiraj 4 Cr. M.P. No.1857 of 2020