The High Court quashed non-bailable warrant orders due to lack of judicial mind application and absence of summons issuance. Petitioners were granted liberty to surrender and retain previous bail for three weeks if they comply.
Orders quashed and set aside; liberty granted to surrender and remain on previous bail for three weeks.
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. 1322 of 2016
with
Cr. M.P. No. 1321 of 2016
Cr. M.P. No. 1322 of 2016 1. Birendra Mandal. … … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
Cr. M.P. No. 1321 of 2016
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. K.K. Mishra, A.P.P.
03/04.07.2016 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned A.P.P for the State.
This application has been directed against the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara whereby and whereunder non bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners and other accused persons in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case No. 175 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 425 of 2000. The subsequent order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Maistrate, Jamtara is also under challenge before this Court wherein the earlier order dated 30.05.2016 is again reiterated.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after institution of Jamtara P.S. Case No. 175 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 425 of 2000 the same was challenged by the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1322 of 2016 and in Cr.M.P. No. 374 of 2002 there was an interim order of no coercive steps and the lower court records were also called for in Cr. M.P. No. 374 of 2002 which was however dismissed for non prosecution on 29.04.2015 and the records were sent back and steps were taken by the trial court to secure the attendance of
-2-
the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially summons were ordered to be issued on 16.05.2016 but without being issued the summons against the petitioners non bailable warrant of arrest vide order dated 30.05.2016 has been issued, which was subsequently reiterated in the order dated 14.06.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submits that in absence of the service reports of summons or in fact even the issuance of summons, the subsequent orders for issuance of non bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners is totally illegal as the same does not either contain reasons or reflect subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
Mr. K. K. Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has referred to the order dated 06.05.2002 which speaks about submission of supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioners.
On consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties the entire proceedings seems to have been stalled on account of pendency of Cr.P.C. No. 374 of 2002 and only on its dismissal due to non prosecution and sending back the case records to the court below it seems that learned trial court made efforts to secure the attendance of the accused persons. However, it appears from the impugned order dated 30.05.2016 and 14.06.2016 that none of the orders indicate service of summons upon the petitioners or for that matter issuance of summons for securing the attendance of the petitioners. Both the orders have been mechanically passed without looking into the background facts and circumstances of the case and therefore in view of the fact that the impugned orders do not reflect the independent application of judicial mind on the part of the learned Magistrate the same is hereby quashed and set aside with a liberty to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, to proceed further in accordance with law so far as these petitioners are concerned.
At this juncture it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No.
-3-
1321 of 2016 were on bail and intends to surrender shortly. In such circumstances, if the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 1321 of 2016 namely, Nilambar Mandal, Jai Prakash Mandal and Mahendra Mandal @ Indar Mandal surrender in the learned trial court within a period of three weeks they shall be allowed to remain on previous bail.
Both the applications stand disposed of.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Alok/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders issuing non-bailable warrants are lawful given the absence of summons issuance or service reports?
Whether the petitioners surrendering within three weeks entitles them to remain on previous bail?
Birendra Mandal
Nilambar Mandal
Jai Prakash Mandal
Mahendra Mandal
State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
