Allowed

Prabir Kumar Tafadar Alias Probir Tafadar Alias Prabeer Kumar Tafadar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Oct 2020Cr.M.P./1458/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition filed challenging issues with warrants issued by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate without cancelling existing bail. High Court found grave illegality and set aside the orders.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 13.08.2019 and 16.11.2019 issued by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate are set aside. Petitioner directed to appear via summons within three weeks.

Prabir Kumar Tafadar Alias Probir Tafadar Alias Prabeer… — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1458 of 2020

¶2

----

¶3

Prabir Kumar Tafadar @ Probir Tafadar @ Prabeer Kumar Tafadar

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

… Opposite Party

¶8

---- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

¶9

¶10

For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶11

5/ 12.10.2020 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 11.00 a.m. They have no complain in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶12

2. This case was listed/supposed to be listed before the Lawazima Board for passing an order in respect of the defects, pointed out by the Office.

¶13

3. Considering the pandemic situation where the Court has minimized the footfall of the lawyers and their Clerks in the Court, this Court felt proper to get all the cases listed before this Court so that the defects can be looked into at this stage only. Thus, this case is listed today before this Court directly.

¶14

4. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to deposit the Deficit Court Fee within three weeks. He prays to ignore the rest of the defects and to take up this case on merits.

¶15

5. Accordingly, the rest of the defects, save and except the Deficit Court Fee, are ignored for the present. Petitioner is directed to deposit the Deficit Court Fee, as per the undertaking given by the counsel.

¶16

6. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Bermo Police Station Case No.15 of 2018 (G.R. No.95 of 2018) whereby bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. He has also challenged the order dated 16.11.2019 passed in the said case, by which learned Court below has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

¶17

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on bail, as his bail bond was accepted on 05.12.2018, but, without cancelling the bail, vide impugned orders, the bailable warrant of arrest and non-bailable

¶18

-: 2 :-

¶19

warrant of arrest has been issued by the Court below. He also submits that after taking cognizance, summons were issued to the petitioner, but, the order sheets will show that awaiting the service report, these orders have been passed.

¶20

8. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the State, I have gone through the ordersheets. I find that the petitioner has filed bail bond on 05.12.2018, which was accepted. The Court took cognizance of the offence on 16.01.2019 and issued summons to the petitioner fixing the next date of hearing as 08.03.2019. On 08.03.2019, accused was absent. The Court directed the office clerk to comply the previous order. On 23.05.2019, I find that service report was not received by the Court and the Court was awaiting service report, thus fixed the next date on 13.08.2019. On 13.08.2019 (impugned order), also the service report was not produced before the Court below as there is no mention in the impugned order about the same, yet the Court below issued bailable warrant of arrest. On 16.11.2019 non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued. On that date also, from the ordersheet it is not clear whether service report was received or not. Further, I find that without cancelling the bail, warrants of arrest have been issued.

¶21

9. From the aforesaid facts, I find that a grave illegality has been committed by the Court below while issuing bailable warrant of arrest and nonbailable warrant of arrest. Without cancelling the bail , as the petitioner was already on bail, the impugned orders issuing warrents could not have been passed. Thus, the orders dated 13.08.2019 and 16.11.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Bermo Police Station Case No.15 of 2018 (G.R. No.95 of 2018) are hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court below pursuant to the summons issued in the case within three weeks from today.

¶22

10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶23

Kumar/Cp-03

Prabir Kumar Tafadar Alias Probir Tafadar Alias Prabeer Kumar Tafadar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabir Kumar Tafadar Alias Probir Tafadar Alias Prabeer Kumar Tafadar 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

Munendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Home Department

Tarangani Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development Deptt

Pushpa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandrasekhar Azad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sudhakar Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandrika Yadav Alias Chandrika Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand