The Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition quashing orders for bail cancellation, NBW, and process issuance, setting them aside as legally untenable due to procedural defects and lack of receipt of execution reports.
Impugned orders dated 09.11.2011, 19.02.2013, 12.11.2013 and 15.01.2014 set aside; matter remitted to court below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P No.2236 of 2015
Sadanand Mehta, S/o Lakhan Lal Mahto, R/o Mashodin P.O. - Domchanch, P.S. - Domchanch, District – Koderma (Jharkhand) ---- Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ---- Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : A.P.P
---------
05/Dated: 16th December, 2015
In view of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defect No.09(iii), pointed out by the office, is hereby, ignored.
2. The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed for quashing the orders dated 09.11.2011, 19.02.2013. 12.11.2013 and 15.01.2014 passed in G.R. No.912 of 1999 corresponding to Koderma P.S. Case No.425 of 1999, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. 4. On perusal of the certified copies of order-sheets of G.R. No.912 of 1999, it is evident that the charge was framed on 13.01.2009 and the accused was represented on various dates, i.e., on 20.07.2011, 19.08.2011, but no witnesses were produced and direction was given to the prosecution to produce the witness. That on 17.10.2011, the record was transferred and was received by the another court on 22.10.2011. The accused had filed his representation and there was no witness present on that date. Subsequently, on 09.11.2011 since steps were not taken on behalf of the petitioner in the first half, the court below had ordered for cancellation of bail bond and at the same time when the application under Section 317 Cr.P.C by the petitioner was filed at a belated stage it was ordered to kept on record without rejecting the petition, the court below ordered for issuance of NBW. On subsequent dates i.e., 21.12.2011, 01.02.2012, 16.02.2012, 16.04.2012, 05.06.2012, 03.09.2012, 15.09.2012, 21.12.2012 and 19.12.2013, the execution report of the non-bailable warrant was not received. That on 19.02.2013, without receipt of NBW, proclamation under
Section 82 Cr.P.C was issued. The execution report under Section 82 Cr.P.C was not received, but the learned court below without taking note of the same, ordered for issuance of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. It is evident that execution report of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C was not received and by orders dated 07.05.2015 and 08.09.2015 a show cause was ordered to be issued upon the investigating officer and copy of the same was sent to the Superintendent of Police.
5. It is abundantly clear that the case had not lingered due to non-appearance of the accused, rather as would be evident from the order-sheets the witnesses were not produced by the prosecution and even on 09.11.201 when the bail bond was cancelled no witness was produced by the petitioner. The learned court below should have firstly cancelled the bail and not the bail bond of the petitioner, as prior to cancellation of bail bond, a notice is to be required to be served upon the bailors. That no direction whatsoever was given prior to that date that the representation under Section 317 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner would not be accepted. It is apparent from the record that the case had not lingered due to absence of the petitioner. That the subsequent orders for issuance of NBW and processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C have been passed without receipt of the execution report of NBW or processes and without recording any satisfaction by the court below.
6. In attending facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 09.11.2011, 19.02.2013. 12.11.2013 and 15.01.2014 passed in G.R. No.912 of 1999 corresponding to Koderma P.S. Case No.425 of 1999, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma are not tenable in law and are hereby, set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below.
7. The petitioner shall file application in the court below and the court below shall pass necessary orders without being prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court.
8. In the result, the Cr.M.P stands allowed.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)
Chandan/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal miscellaneous application seeking quashing of orders relating to bail cancellation, non-bailable warrant, and process issuance is maintainable.
Whether impugned orders were passed without considering execution reports of warrants and processes.
Whether notice was properly served upon bailors prior to cancellation of bail bond.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Sadanand Mehta
The State of Jharkhand
Amitav K. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
