Partly allowed

Santosh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2016Cr.M.P./2020/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an order summoning the petitioner to face trial under s. 319 Cr.P.C. but set aside an order issuing a Non Bailable Warrant due to lack of objective reasoning and subsequent procedural irregularities, allowing the lower court to proceed further.

What did the court decide?

The order summoning the petitioner was confirmed; the order issuing the Non Bailable Warrant was set aside, and the subsequent order was declared redundant.

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 2020 of 2016 Santosh Kumar Singh .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilendu Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, A.P.P. ---

¶3

Order No. 03 Dated 16th September 2016

¶4

Heard Mr. Nilendu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶5

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau (Daltonganj) in connection with S.T. No. 361A of 2013, whereby the petition filed u/s 319 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the prosecution to summon the petitioner has been allowed and the petitioner has been summoned to face trial. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 11.07.2016, whereby the learned court below issued Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner.

¶6

It has been submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on account of enmity which was existing between the informant and the petitioner and as such his name has deliberately been taken in course of evidence of the witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that without service of summons, NBW has been issued against the petitioner vide order dated 11.07.2016, which does not reflect subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶7

It appears from the impugned order dated 09.05.2016 that PW 3, PW 7, PW 8 and PW 9 have consistently stated about the presence and involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. In view of the active participation of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence, which has come during course of evidence of witnesses, the application filed u/s 319 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the prosecution has rightly been allowed by the learned court below.

¶8

So far as the order the dated 11.07.2016, whereby the learned court below issued Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner is concerned, it appears that on 08.08.2016 the execution report of the NBW has been received, wherein it has been stated that the village in which the petitioner resides comes within the jurisdiction of another Police Station

¶9

¶10

and thereafter fresh direction was given for issuance of NBW on 08.08.2016. However, as it appears from the dated 11.07.2016 as well as the subsequent order dated 08.08.2016 that there does not seem to be any subjective satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, as no reasons have been assigned in the said orders. The impugned order dated 11.07.2016 has been passed in a mechanical manner which has been subsequently reflected in the order dated 08.08.2016.

¶11

In view of what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau (Daltonganj), whereby the petition filed u/s 319 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the prosecution to summon the petitioner has been allowed. However, the order dated 11.07.2016, whereby the learned court below issued Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner is set aside and consequently the subsequent order dated 08.08.2016 also becomes redundant.

¶12

However, the learned court below is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶13

This application is allowed in part. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶14

Santosh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Singh v. The 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

Mahruddin Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kishori Sah And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajeev Ranjan Alias Happu And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Abbas Ansari Alias Abbas Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jitendra Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Phulmani Gudia Vs The State Of Jharkhand