Quashed

Kunal Alias Kunal Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jul 2016Cr.Rev./623/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration with proper reasoning after affording parties an opportunity to be heard, due to the absence of cogent reasons in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 22.04.2016 and remitted the matter to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order after hearing parties and considering collected materials.

Kunal Alias Kunal Kumar Mahto Vs The State Of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 623 of 2016

¶3

Kunal @ Kunal Kumar Mahto ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... … … …Opp. Party

¶4

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶5

............ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P.

¶6

3/18.07.2016

¶7

Heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶8

This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.04. 2016 passed in Lalpur P.S. Case No. 113/15, corresponding to G.R. No. 2694 of 2015 (S.T. No. 111/16) by learned Judicial Commissioner, XVII, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, application for discharge filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. has been rejected.

¶9

Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that merely the contention of the rival parties have been recorded and no material has been discussed as to what prompted the learned trial court to reject the application for discharge.

¶10

Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶11

It appears from the impugned order dated 22.04. 2016 that mere mention has been made about the submission advanced by the parties. There is absolutely no finding as to what prompted the learned trial court to reject the application for discharge preferred by the petitioner or what were the materials which weighed in his mind while passing the impugned order dated 22.04. 2016.

¶12

In absence of cogent reason, the order dated 22.04. 2016 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, XVII, Ranchi in S.T. No. 111/16 is hereby quashed and set aside and matter is remitted back to the learned trial court to pass afresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and after considering the materials which have been collected in course of investigation.

¶13

This application stands disposed of.

¶14

Binit

Kunal Alias Kunal Kumar Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Alias Kunal Kumar Mahto 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhandari Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Pramila Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suman Devi And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kanika Banerjee Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Chandan Kumar Gupta through His Father Upendra Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

P S Natrajan Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Anr.