Allowed

Kamaljeet Singh Alias Billa v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 May 2019Cr.M.P./518/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed and set aside multiple impugned orders regarding arrest warrants, proclamations, and attachment of property along with the declaration of the petitioner as an absconder, due to procedural lapses including failure to request production of prosecution witnesses or obtain execution reports.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 09.02.2010 to 09.05.2018 are quashed and set aside, and the court below is directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Kamaljeet Singh Alias Billa Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.518 of 2019

¶3

Kamaljit Singh @ Billa ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. ---------

¶8

02/Dated: 2nd May, 2019

¶9

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the orders dated 09.02.2010, 29.03.2010, 13.01.2011, 28.02.2012, 15.09.2012, 05.01.2016, 18.01.2018 and 09.05.2018, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate,1^st Class, Dhanbad, has ordered for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., order of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C., fresh warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., order of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C., thereafter declaring the petitioner as an absconder and order of issuance of permanent warrant of arrest, respectively, in connection with Bank More P.S. Case No.41 of 2004

¶10

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P., and on perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that charge-sheet was submitted on 21.08.2009 in the court below whereafter notice was ordered to be issued against the petitioner. The service report was not received by the court below and on the prayer of the investigating officer, the court below has passed the order dated 09.02.2010 for issuance of warrant of arrest. Again on 29.03.2010 on the prayer of investigating officer, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was issued without receipt of the execution report of the warrant of arrest. Likewise, on 13.01.2011 without return or submission of the execution report of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C, order of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C has been issued.

¶11

Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the execution report of the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C was received as would be evident from the order dated 31.01.2012. On perusal of the

¶12

- 2 -

¶13

order dated 31.01.2012, it appears that no report whatsoever was submitted by the investigating officer with respect to the properties which were attached. It appears that the court below, again on 28.02.2012, ordered for issuance of fresh warrant of arrest against the petitioner. This issuance of fresh warrant of arrest reflects that the court below had realized that the above orders have been passed without receipt of the execution report, hence the order was passed afresh for issuance of warrant of arrest. The execution report of the subsequent warrant of arrest was neither returned nor received by the court below and on 15.09.2012, the court below ordered for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C and the said order was complied with by the office on 26.02.2013. During the period the case was transferred from one court to another. On 25.05.2013, without receipt of the execution report of the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C, the court below ordered for issuance of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C., by order dated 29.05.2013.

¶14

3. It is amply clear that after the transfer of the record, the court below, on 17.02.2014, recorded that the execution report of process has not been received. Again by order dated 23.06.2014, the transferee court ordered for issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. On 05.01.2016, the order for attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C was issued without receipt of the execution report of the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It appears that the execution report (E/R) was awaited which finds mention in the orders dated 23.01.2017, 14.02.217, 03.03.2017 and 18.03.2017. Thereafter, the case was transferred to another court and by order dated 18.01.2018 the court below observed that despite issuance of bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest, processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C., the attendance of the petitioner has not been secured, therefore it declared the petitioner as an absconder and ordered for issuance of permanent warrant of arrest on 09.05.2018. The court below noted that execution report of the processes has not been received and passed the order under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Even while passing the order under Section 299 Cr.P.C, the court below was required to direct the prosecution to produce the witnesses for examination before passing the order under Section 399 Cr.P.C.

¶15

- 3 -

¶16

4. It is evident that the court below has not adhered to the procedure of sending the notice to the prosecution for production of the witnesses and passed the order under Section 299 Cr.P.C.

¶17

From the narrations of the facts, as noted above, it is apparent that the court below has passed the aforesaid orders without following the procedure of law, accordingly, the impugned orders dated 09.02.2010, 29.03.2010, 13.01.2011, 28.02.2012, 15.09.2012, 05.01.2016, 18.01.2018 are, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶18

The court below shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law in the matter.

¶19

5. With the said direction, the criminal miscellaneous petition is, hereby, allowed.

¶20

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)

¶21

Chandan /-

Kamaljeet Singh Alias Billa v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaljeet Singh Alias Billa 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

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sekhar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Shaw Alias Mukesh Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aditya Goel Vs the State of Jharkhand