Allowed

Satish Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Dec 2019Cr.M.P./1432/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a habeas corpus petition/quashing application wherein the petitioner challenged an impugned order for issuing process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., declaring him an absconder, on grounds of being unreasoned and non-compliant with Cr.P.C. provisions.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.03.2008 and the consequential order dated 19.12.2008 are set aside with the matter remitted to the lower court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Satish Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 1432 of 2019

¶3

Satish Kumar Singh..…....... Petitioner (s)

¶4

Versus State of Jharkhand ………… Opp. Party(s)

¶5

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶6

…… For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶7

5/17.12.2019 Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶8

In this application, the petitioner prays for quashing the orders dated 28.03.2008, by which processes under Section 82 & 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been issued against him. Further, he prays to quash the order dated 19.12.2008, by which the petitioner was declared as an absconder.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued simultaneously by the impugned order dated 28.03.2008. He submits that the impugned order is unreasoned one and none of the conditions, either provided under Section 82 or 83 Cr.P.C. have been followed by the court below while issuing the impugned order.

¶10

Learned A.P.P., after going through the impugned order, admits that the order is unreasoned one and none of the provisions and preconditions of the provision have been followed.

¶11

I have gone through the impugned order. In one line, the court below has issued the process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. without assigning any reason and without complying the provision of law. Thus, this order needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.

¶12

Further, the order dated 19.12.2008, by which the petitioner has been declared as an absconder, is also not in conformity with the provision of Section 83 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Since the order dated 28.03.2008 is hereby set aside, as the consequence the order dated 19.12.2008 is also set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.

¶14

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶15

Mukund/-cp.3

Satish Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Singh 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

Kuldeep Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sher Bahadur Singh Alias Sher Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saukat Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Bishwajith Bandopadyay And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Prince Singh Alias Rahul Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sitaram Murmu Alias Sitaram Manjhi Hadam Vs the State of Jharkhand