The Court held that since the notification banning the Popular Front of India was quashed in a prior Writ Petition due to lack of reasons under Article 19(4), no case was made out under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed as infructuous.
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 A.B.A. No. 3190 of 2018
Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party --------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH --------- For the Petitioners : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P.
03/Dated: 14/09/2018
Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pakur (M) P.S. Case No. 26 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 146 of 2018, registered under Sections 120-B of the I.P.C. and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, lodged on the basis of one written report given by Sahwan Sheikh, Assistant Director, Panchayati Raj, Pakur.
The prosecution case, in short, is that a Notification of ban order of Popular Front of India (PFI) has been banned by the Government of Jharkhand vide its Notification No. 18/12 As Su. (29) 07/2009-1096 dated 21.02.2018. It is alleged that on 22.02.2018 the house of Abedur Rahman, the office and training centre of Popular Front of India was raided and search was made by opening the lock of the house of the owner Samsul Hoda and several documents and other articles were seized, total 42 kinds of articles were seized. On the basis of these and other allegations, the instant case has been instituted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that W.P. (Cr.) No. 94 of 2018 has been filed by one Abdul Wadud challenging the Notification dated 18/12 Aa. Su. (29) 07/2009-1096 dated 21.02.2018 and for quashing the entire criminal case arising out of Ranga P.S. Case No. 10 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 123 of 2018 which has been registered under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 against Abdul Wadud (petitioner no. 2) and others in which the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court under order dated 27.08.2018 observed as under:
“38. To sum up, therefore, based on the discussions made hereinabove, this Court comes to a conclusion that the State Government has failed to provide appropriate reasons which would come within the
-2-
parameters of the exception envisaged in Article 19 (4) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned notification as contained in Notification No. 18/12 Aa. Su. (29) 07-2009-1096, dated 21.02.2018 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside.”
As the aforesaid Notification No. 18/12 Aa. Su. (29) 07 / 2009 – 1096 dated 21.02.2018 by which the Popular Front of India Organization has been banned and now the said notification has been quashed, so no case under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act is made out. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed as having become infructuous.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.)
Sunil/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail application should be allowed considering the antecedent quashing of the underlying ban notification.
Whether the State failed to provide appropriate reasons under Article 19(4) of the Constitution for banning the Popular Front of India.
If the banning notification is quashed, whether the criminal case and anticipatory bail application become infructuous.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Md. Hussain
Md. Hanjela Sk.
The State of Jharkhand
ANANT BIJAY SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
