Partly allowed

Satyendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 May 2019Cr.M.P./405/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order directing issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as it was passed mechanically without judicial mind. An earlier non-bailable warrant order was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 16.01.2019 directing issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is set aside and quashed. The order dated 16.08.2018 is left unaltered.

Satyendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. no.405 of 2019

¶2

Satyendra Kumar ……. Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party

¶3

--------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate For the State : APP

¶4

----------

¶5

02/Dated:07.05.2019

¶6

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner is present.

¶7

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.08.2018 and 16.01.2019 respectively, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under Sections 82 Cr.P.C has been issued by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case no. 166 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case no.2604 of 2017.

¶8

For ready reference the order dated 16.01.2019 is reproduced as under:

¶9

“ 16.01.2019 I.O. of the case files application forwarded by Ld. A.P.P. with prayer that kindly issue Istehar (pro 82 Cr.P.C.) of accused Santosh Kumar S/o Nageshwar Prasad Singh and Satyendra Kumar S/o Ramdeo Pd. Burnwal. As the said accused are wanted in this case & E/R of NBW have been deposited by I.O.

¶10

Seen & perused the case record, it appears that the said accused are wanted in this case & their name in F.I.R. also anticipatory bail of said accused has been rejected by Ld. Sessions Judge hence O/c to issue process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. (Istehar) against them.”

¶11

Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP. It transpires that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Jamshedpur, vide order dated 01.08.2019 while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail had directed the petitioner to appear in the court below and pray for regular bail.

¶12

From bare perusal of the order dated 16.01.2019 it is evident that the court below has not assigned any reasons or recorded its

¶13

-2-

¶14

satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest. In fact, the order has been passed mechanically in a routine manner on the application filed by the Investigating Officer, without application of the judicial mind. The order is not in accordance with law, consequently the order dated 16.01.2019 is, hereby, set aside and quashed.

¶15

However, the order dated 16.08.2018, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued, does not require any interference by this Court.

¶16

In the result the petition stands allowed to that extent.

¶17

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶18

Tarun/-

Satyendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Kumar 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

Jitan Bediya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Jhunjhunwala Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishwanath Prasad Alias Vishwanath Rawani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kausar Jahan Vs State of Jharkhand

Manoj Singh Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anjana Das Vs State of Jharkhand