Partly allowed

Dinesh Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Mar 2013Cr.M.P./2828/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of arrest warrant and process orders, the High Court held that orders for issuing processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were illegal due to absence of execution reports but allowed the arrest warrant order, directing surrender.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 18/04/2012 and 24/09/2012 under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. set aside; petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks.

Dinesh Singh Vs State Of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 2828 of 2012

¶3

Dinesh Singh.... ............. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ………… Opp. Party …… Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate For the State : Mr. APP .......

¶5

2./06.03.2013 This application has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 05/12/2011, 18/04/2012, and 24/09/2012, passed in connection with Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 34/2009, G.R. No. 996/2009, whereby and whereunder, warrant of arrest, processes under Section 82 as well as 83 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be issued against the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a case was lodged under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code in which the name of this petitioner was never there as an accused. Subsequently, in course of investigation, name of this petitioner does transpire and only on that basis a requisition was sent by the Investigating Officer before the Court below for issuance of warrant of arrest against him and on such requisition warrant of arrest has been issued vide order dated 05/12/2011. Subsequently, without there being any report relating to execution of the warrant of arrest, process was ordered to be issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C and similarly, without there being any report relating to execution of the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., an order was passed on 24/09/2012, whereby process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued and, thereby, all the orders are fit to be set aside.

¶7

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner seems to have been made accused as he had given the land in lease to one of the coaccused Kaushal Kumar Srivastava, who had stored coal over that piece of land and that coal was taken to be illegal. When said Kaushal Kumar

¶8

Srivastava filed an application before this Court for release of coal, that was released in his favour vide order dated 04/05/2010, passed in Cr. Revision No. 795 of 2009, and this fact itself makes clear that the petitioner has nothing to do with the said coal. Still, warrant of arrest has been issued against him and, thereafter, processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C., have been issued.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, I do find that the warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued when a requisition was made by the I.O. stating therein that the name of this petitioner got transpired during investigation and in such event, if the warrant of arrest has been issued, I do not find any illegality in the order issuing warrant of arrest.

¶10

So far as issuance of processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. is concerned, those orders do not seem to have been passed in accordance with law as before issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., there was no report relating to the execution of the warrant of arrest and similarly, the Court, without having any report relating to execution of the process under Section 82, has passed an order for issuance of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. and, thereby, both the orders dated 18/04/2012 and 24/09/2012, are, hereby, set aside.

¶11

The petitioner is hereby directed to surrender before the Court below within two weeks from today. If the petitioner surrenders and prays for bail, the same be disposed of after taking into consideration with the submissions relating to the release of coal in favour of said Kaushal Kumar Srivastava.

¶12

Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.

¶13

Let this order be communicated through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.

¶14

(R.R.Prasad, J)

¶15

Mukund/-

Dinesh Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tinku Mian Tinku And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Birendra Kumar Singh Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Yogendra Baraik Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Md.Irfan Vs State of Jharkhand

Pushpa Choudhary And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rukmani Devi and Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Tinku Mian  Tinku And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Birendra Kumar Singh Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Yogendra Baraik Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Md.Irfan Vs State of Jharkhand

Pushpa Choudhary And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rukmani Devi and Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tinku Mian Tinku And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.