The High Court quashed non-bailable warrant orders, proclamation and process issued by a Judicial Magistrate as they failed to reflect subjective satisfaction of independent judicial mind.
Impugned orders dated 17.11.2011, 01.03.2012, 18.04.2013, 07.11.2013, 08.04.2015 and 13.08.2015 were quashed.
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 Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2093 of 2016
Md. Abbas Ansari @ Abbas Ansari S/o Late Prakash Ansari, R/o Ena Islampur, Jharia, PO & PS Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad … …
… … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
3/16.09.2016 Heard Shailesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.
In this application the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 17.11.2011, 01.03.2012 and 18.04.2013 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued by Miss Kumari Jiv, Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad in Jharia P. S. Case No. 421 of 2011 corresponding to G. R. No. 3671 of 2011.
A further challenge has been made after taking of cognizance to the orders dated 07.11.2013, 08.04.2015 and 13.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad by dint of which fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the impugned orders reflects subjective satisfaction of the magistrate as would be evident from the order itself. It has further been submitted that at the post cognizance stage, the impugned orders dated 07.11.2013, 08.04.2015 and 13.08.2015 are virtually the replica of the earlier orders.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has supported the impugned orders.
It appears from the impugned orders that no reason has been assigned by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned orders directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under
-2-
Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. None of the orders therefore in absence of any cogent reasons or reflection of independent judicial mind are sustainable.
Accordingly, in view of the discussions made above, the impugned orders are quashed.
However, liberty is given to the learned Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law.
As prayed, let this order be communicated through FAX to the concerned court at the cost of the petitioner.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
R. Shekhar Cp 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders directing issuance of non-bailable warrant, proclamation and process without assigning reasons reflect independent judicial mind.
Whether the impugned orders are sustainable in absence of cogent reasons.
Md. Abbas Ansari @ Abbas Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
