Allowed

Vivek Kumar Singh Alias Bivek Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Dec 2019Cr.M.P./303/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court set aside orders dismissing a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., cancelling bail, issuing process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., and a permanent warrant of arrest. The court found the petitioner was denied an opportunity to appear personally and the lower court failed to record subjective satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 22.02.2017, 14.03.2018, 18.07.2018, 28.09.2018 were set aside; petitioner allowed to remain on bail bonds until 17.01.2020.

Vivek Kumar Singh Alias Bivek Kumar Gupta… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 303 of 2019

¶3

Vivek Kumar Singh @ Bivek Kumar Gupta

¶4

Sunil Mahato @ Sunil Kumar Mahto @ Sunil Mahto

¶5

Md. Naved @ Md. Namid @ Mohammad Naved Khan @ Md. Nawed..…....... Petitioner (s) Versus State of Jharkhand ………… Opp. Party(s)

¶6

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶7

…… For the Petitioner : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K.Choudhary, A.P.P.

¶8

6/19.12.2019 Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶9

In this application, the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 22.02.2017, by which the petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioners, was rejected and their bail was cancelled.

¶10

Further, the petitioners challenge the orders dated 14.03.2018, 18.07.2018 and 28.09.2018, by which processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant of arrest respectively have been issued against the petitioners.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were regularly represented by their lawyer, which would be evident from the entire order sheets, but on 22.02.2017, the petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., which was filed by the petitioners, was dismissed and simultaneously, their bail was cancelled. She submits that there was no direction to appear in person and no date was fixed for framing charge. She submits that in view of the aforesaid fact the order dated 22.02.2017 is absolutely bad. She submits that the order issuing process under Sections 82 Cr.P.C. is also bad as the same does not reflect any subjective satisfaction. She submits that even the execution report of the nonbailable warrant of arrest was not before the Court when the Court was passing the order issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. She submits that similar is the situation when the proclamation under Section 83 Cr.P.C was issued and also when the permanent warrant of arrest was issued. She lastly submits that the petitioners are ready to appear before the Court below on any date and an opportunity may be given to the petitioners to contest the case as they were already on bail.

¶12

Considering the submission of the petitioners and after going through the record, I find that the impugned order dated 22.02.2017 is liable to be set aside on the ground that the petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C., which was filed by the petitioners, was dismissed by the court

¶13

-2-

¶14

below on that date and immediately issued warrant of arrest against them after cancelling their bail. The Court below should have granted some time to the petitioners to appear in person, which the court did not give, thus rendering the order invalid. Accordingly, the order dated 22.02.2017 is hereby set aside.

¶15

Similarly, I find that the orders issuing process under Sections 82 & 83 are absolutely cryptic as the same does not record any subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate. Further the mandatory provision of law has not been complied with by the court below while issuing the impugned order. Thus, the same also need to be quashed. Accordingly, the orders dated 14.03.2018 and 18.07.2018, issuing process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. are hereby set aside. Consequently, the order 28.09.2018, by which permanent warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners is also hereby set aside.

¶16

The petitioners are directed to appear before the Court below on or before 17.01.2020. The court below is directed to allow the petitioners to remain on the same bail bonds. The petitioners will also file an undertaking that they will appear before the court below on each and every date till charge is framed.

¶17

It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to appear on or before 17^th January, 2020, all coercive steps shall be taken against them to apprehend them.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.

¶19

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶20

Mukund/-cp.3

Vivek Kumar Singh Alias Bivek Kumar Gupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Singh Alias Bivek Kumar Gupta 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

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

Suresh Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dharmendar Yadav Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nasir Sk Vs the State of Jharkhand