Dismissed

Hema Dom Alias Hema Kalindi v. State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Oct 2014Cr.Rev./504/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal revision application filed against an order of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting a discharge petition. The High Court found no illegality warranting interference as the trial court's order was a speaking order based on sufficient material in the case diary to frame charges.

What did the court decide?

Revision application dismissed; impugned order of the Judicial Magistrate confirmed.

Hema Dom Alias Hema Kalindi Vs State Of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 504 of 2013

¶2

Hema Dom @ Hema Kalindi .… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶3

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar For the State : A.P.P

¶4

¶5

06/Dated: 07/10/2014

¶6

This criminal revision application has been directed against the impugned order dated 14.05.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R.No.11556 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge, preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶7

2 . The brief facts of the case is that the informant Biswajeet Roy along with one Amit Singh were returning home on 6.7.2012 on their bicycle and when they reached near the dense bushes and trees two persons armed with lathi stopped them and they took away the cycle and the mobile phone and thereafter two more persons appeared with country made pistol and they also snatched the motorcycle, mobile and cash from the motorcycle riders who were passing by. On the basis of the information Balidih P.S.case no.100/12 was registered under Section 392 and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 395/412 of the IPC.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a handicapped person, in support of the same a medical certificate issued by the doctor of PMCH, Dhanbad dated 10/8/2005 has been filed; that the learned Sessions Judge has observed that no case under Sections 395/412 of the IPC is made out rather it is a case under Section 392/411 of the IPC and remitted the case to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate for framing the charge under Sections 392/411 of the IPC. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not put on T.I.P and the informant has not disclosed the identity or produced any documents regarding the bicycle which was recovered from the

¶9

petitioner to prove that he is the owner of the said bicycle neither he had filed any application for release of the bicycle. It is further submitted that the trial court had failed to appreciate the fact that the bicycle recovered from the house of the petitioner does not belong to the informant and without considering the materials on record the court below has rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner only on the basis of the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge in the order under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the State has controverted the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the stolen bicycle was recovered from the possession of the petitioner on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Jaidev Dhibor.

¶11

5. On perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the trial court has discussed the fact that the looted bicycle was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused and on the basis of the material in the case diary has held that there is sufficient material to frame the charge under Sections 395/412 of the IPC against the petitioner as per the case diary.

¶12

6. In view of the speaking order dated 14.05.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in G.R.No.11556 of 2012, this court does not find any illegality in the order warranting interference. In the result the Revision application is hereby dismissed.

¶13

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)

¶14

Fahim/

Hema Dom Alias Hema Kalindi v. State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hema Dom Alias Hema Kalindi 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

Munna Kumar Verma Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Hemant Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Surendra Mahto Alias Gorka Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sukhdeo Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Chhotu Mandal Alias Chhote Lal Mandal Vs State Of Jharkhand

Pramila Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand