Dismissed

Ramanand Sah v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2018Cr.M.P./290/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Jharkhand dismissed petitioners' application quashing non-bailable warrant and proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., noting their knowledge of the case and failure to pursue surrender application. Court directed surrender within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Allowed to invoke; application dismissed with direction to surrender within four weeks on penalty of warrant execution.

Ramanand Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 290 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Ramanand Sah. 2. Smt. Radha Gupta. …..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Balram Bhagat. ….Opposite Parties.

¶5

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶6

----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Priyadarshi, Advocate For the State : A.P.P -----

¶7

I.A. No. 6458 of 2018

¶8

05/9.8.2018 Heard the parties.

¶9

This application has been preferred by the petitioners for amending the prayer portion made in the main application in view of subsequent development, by which proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued against the petitioners.

¶10

Since the order dated 15.2.2018 is in continuation of the earlier order, by which non bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners which has been challenged by the petitioners and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, this application is allowed.

¶11

Let I.A. No. 6458 of 2018 be treated as a part of the main application. Cr.M.P. No. 290 of 2018

¶12

This application has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 17.6.2017, passed in PCR Case No. 240 of 1994 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, by which non bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners. By virtue of I.A. No. 6458 of 2018 having been allowed by this Court, petitioners have also challenged the order dated 15.2.2018.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was no service report and in absence of the same, straightaway non bailable warrant of arrest could not have been issued against the petitioners and subsequently proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been issued. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were never aware of the case and therefore the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶15

It appears that initially the complaint petition was dismissed but on revision, same was allowed and thereafter complaint case proceeded. It further appears that one of the petitioners had challenged the entire criminal proceeding in Cr.Misc. Case No. 19150 of 1998, which was dismissed. Pursuant to issuance

¶16

-2-

¶17

of non bailable warrant of arrest, petitioners had filed a surrender application before the learned court below but on repeated calls neither the petitioners nor their counsel had appeared, which ultimately led the learned court below to issue proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Since the petitioners were aware of the pendency of the case and in spite of filing a surrender application before the learned court below they had not pursue the same and such conduct on the part of the petitioners does not implore this Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.6.2017 or in the order dated 15.2.2018, this application stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks.

¶19

If the petitioners surrender within the aforesaid period, learned court below shall dispose of the application preferably on the same day on proper appreciation of the materials available on record.

¶20

This application stands disposed of.

¶21

Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)

¶23

Rakesh/

Ramanand Sah v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanand Sah 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

Deepak Kumar Jaiswal And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Idris Khan And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gopal Mishra And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Md.Eqbal And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Asfaque Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jindal Steel and Power Limited through Shri P B K Charan Vs the State of Jharkhand