Allowed

Mantu Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Dec 2020Cr.M.P./2381/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition challenging non-speaking orders issuing processes, attachments, and a permanent warrant of arrest. The High Court set aside these orders and remanded the matter for a hearing with reasons, distinguishing a recent precedent requiring reasoned orders for Section 82 and 83 CrPC applications.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 01.03.2019, 19.09.2019, and 26.11.2019 are quashed; matter remanded for fresh order.

Mantu Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2381 of 2020

----

Mantu Kumar

… Petitioner

-versus-

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶7

----

¶8

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

¶9

---For the Petitioner : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shree Prakash Jha, APP ----

¶10

2/ 07.12.2020 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.

¶11

2. In this case, petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.03.2019 passed in Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) Police Station Case No.562 of 2014 (G.R. No.3548 of 2014), by which processes under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued. He has also challenged the order dated 19.09.2019 by which attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued. He has also challenged the order dated 26.11.2019 by which permanent warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner after declaring him a permanent absconder.

¶12

3. When I go through the order dated 01.03.2019 and 19.09.2019, I find that the same are non-speaking orders and no reasons have been assigned. I find that the orders are not in consonance with the order passed by this Court in the case Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Others versus State of Jharkhand as reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 , wherein this Court, by referring to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, has passed a detailed order in respect of issuance of processes under Section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶13

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the order dated 01.03.2019 and 19.09.2019 passed in Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) Police Station Case No.562 of 2014 (G.R. No.3548 of 2014) are hereby set aside. Consequentially, the order

¶14

-: 2 :-

¶15

dated 26.11.2019 is also hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below for passing fresh order in accordance with law.

¶16

5. This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.

¶17

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶18

Kumar/Cp-03

Mantu Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritu Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Praveen Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Santosh Kumar Das Alias Santosh Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anand Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akhilesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tara Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand