Allowed

Kamini Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./3125/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes an anticipatory bail order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, for lack of reasoned judgment, remanding the case to be reconsidered on merits. The petitioner sought modification of the order, which was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 23.08.2019 in A.B.P. No.1153 of 2019 is set aside; the matter is remanded to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi.

Kamini Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Anticipatory Bail | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 3125 of 2019

¶3

Kamini Kumari … Petitioner

¶4

-versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Mamta Agrwal … Opposite Parties ---

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶8

---For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ----

¶9

5/ 14.01.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶10

2. Petitioner has approached this Court for modification of order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in A.B.P. No.1153 of 2019, whereby the Court below has directed to release the petitioner on bail after depositing Rs.35,000/- by way of ad-interim victim compensation through Bank Draft.

¶11

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion for the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi to direct depositing of Rs.35,000/by way of ad-interim victim compensation. He submits that there was no dispute between the parties.

¶12

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that there are materials against the petitioner, thus, the impugned order was passed.

¶13

5. After going through the impugned order, I find that the Court below has not considered as to what are the materials for which anticipatory bail should be considered. The Court has also not considered as to who is or are the victims of this case. The Judicial Commissioner has also not considered whether the matter is dispute in relation to monetary transactions or is a criminal act, which constitutes an offence.

¶14

6. In a very recent judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 5^th December, 2019 in Cr. Appeal No.1843 of 2019 (Mahipal versus Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Another] and other analogous cases, in paragraph 23 thereof, it has been held that merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not sub serve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order. An order granting bail or anticipatory bail must

¶15

-: 2 :-

¶16

reflect reasons in the order. It is not necessary to reflect numerous reasons, even one is sufficient. In this case, I find that no reasons have been assigned.

¶17

7. Thus, I am setting aside the order dated 23.08.2019 passed in A.B.P. No.1153 of 2019 and remand the matter to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi to decide A.B.P. No.1153 of 2019 on merits afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Counsel for the petitioner will cooperate with the hearing of the anticipatory bail before the Court below. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶18

6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court concerned through FAX.

¶19

Kumar/Cp-03

Kamini Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamini Kumari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashim Imam And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Anil Kherwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Chandra Jaiswal Alias Sheo Chand Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Wanshropan Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand