This order quashes an N.B. warrant imperatively issued due to anticipatory bail rejection without considering summons service. The court notes the order lacked subjective satisfaction.
The impugned order dated 15.02.2016 directing issuance of Non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners is hereby 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. 472 of 2016
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate
7/14.07.2016 Heard Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
At the outset, Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel submitted that he is restricting his prayer only with respect to the order dated 15.02.2016 by which Non-bailable warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against the petitioners passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/1-2108 of 2015.
Learned senior counsel submits that without waiting for the execution report for the summons and merely because of rejection of the anticipatory bail application filed before the leaned Additional Sessions Judge I, East Singhbhum, learned C.J.M. has directed to issue Non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners. It has been submitted that the said order does not reflect subjective satisfaction of the learned C.J.M.
Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the impugned order dated 15.02.2016 and stated that since the petitioners have filed anticipatory bail application, he was well within the knowledge of the pendency of the present case and in such circumstances, by issuance of Non-bailable warrant of arrest no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned C.J.M.
-2-
It appears from the order dated 15.02.2016 that no mention has been made about the fact that the summons have been served upon the petitioners. Moreover, anticipatory bail application was rejected by the learned court below and on that very ground, the office was directed to issue Non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The impugned order dated 15.02.2016 therefore has not considered the aforesaid facts by directing issuance of Non-bailable warrant of arrest.
In such circumstances, therefore, impugned order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the C.J.M., East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in C/1-2108 of 2015 is hereby quashed. Let it be noted that since the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has not prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.
However, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
R. Shekhar Cp 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order directing issuance of a Non-bailable warrant without serving summons and solely on rejection of anticipatory bail is legally sustainable.
Whether the High Court can quash a warrant issuance order that fails to consider relevant facts like lack of service of summons.
Pramod Kumar Sharma
Vishakha Sharma
The State of Jharkhand
Vishnu Kumar Sharma
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
