Allowed

Sukra Nayak Alias Sukra Machuwa v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jun 2016Cr.M.P./694/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's criminal miscellaneous petition, quashing orders regarding warrants, proclamation, and absconder declaration due to procedural lapses and lack of subjective satisfaction. The court directed the petitioner to appear within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 28.11.2007, 25.02.2008, 13.10.2009 and 05.04.2010 are quashed and set aside. Petitioner directed to appear within 3 weeks.

Sukra Nayak Alias Sukra Machuwa Vs The State Of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 694 of 2016

¶2

Sukra Nayak @ Sukra Machuwa son of late Naina Machuwa, resident of Village Edalhatu, PO & PS Bundu, District Ranchi

¶3

… … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anjani Kumar Toppo, A.P.P.

¶8

3/15.06.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

This application has been preferred against the order dated 19.06.2007 and subsequent orders in connection with Tamar P. S. Case No. 125 of 2006 whereby and whereunder bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. have been issued and including the order dated 05.04.2010 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been declared a permanent absconder.

¶10

It appears that an FIR was instituted against the petitioner being Tamar P. S. Case No. 125 of 2006 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 of I.P.C. The petitioner was released on police bail, however subsequently after submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner cognizance was taken on 19.02.2007 and summons were issued against the petitioner. It has been submitted that without any service report of the summons, initially bailable warrant of arrest and subsequently non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation and process under Sections 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued.

¶11

Learned counsel further submits that none of the orders reflect subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and in fact vide order dated 05.04.2010, the petitioner was declared as an absconder.

¶12

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted police bail and subsequent to submission of charge-sheet, various efforts were taken by the learned court below for securing attendance of the petitioner. It

¶13

-2-

¶14

appears that none of the orders reflect subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶15

In such circumstances, therefore, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶16

Accordingly, this application is allowed and the orders dated 28.11.2007, 25.02.2008/13.10.2009 and 05.04.2010 are hereby quashed and set aside with a further direction to the petitioner to appear before the learned trial court within a period of 3 weeks.

¶17

However, liberty is reserved with the learned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law, if the petitioner fails to appear within the said period.

¶18

This criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

¶19

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Sukra Nayak Alias Sukra Machuwa v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukra Nayak Alias Sukra Machuwa 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

Hifza Arif Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mahendra Dusadh Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jayant Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Shambhu Nath Agrawal And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sushil Kumar Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.