Allowed

Manoj Modi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Oct 2021Cr.M.P./1918/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, quashed orders for issuing a non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. after the petitioner assured appearance. The matter was remitted to the trial court with a direction to hear the case expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 21.12.2020, 06.03.2021, and 23.07.2021 are quashed. The matter is remitted to the concerned court, and the petitioner is directed to appear on 12.11.2021.

Manoj Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1918 of 2021

¶3

Manoj Modi, S/o Shiv Shankar Modi @ Golu Modi, age 42 years, r/o Ratabahiyar, PO Ratabahiyar, PS Gandey, District Giridih … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.

¶8

04/05.10.2021. Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶9

Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. for the opposite party-State.

¶10

This petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 21.12.2020, 06.03.2021 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Giridih in Gandey P.S. Case No.23/2020, whereby, non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued against the petitioner and the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Revision No.34/2021, whereby, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 21.12.2020 only on the application of the I.O. non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. He further submits that I.O. has stated before the concerned court that the petitioner is trying to dispose of the movable property and in spite of the attempt made by the I.O., the petitioner has not been apprehended. On that basis, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. He also submits that the revisional court has also accepted the submission of the A.P.P. that movable property is being disposed of by the petitioner and on that basis criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶12

-2-

¶13

The entire order-sheet has been annexed with the petition. The F.I.R. was received on the concerned court on 17.03.2020 and thereafter only two orders are reflected i.e. 18.03.2020 and 09.07.2020. There is no recording of finding what happened to the summon and bailable warrant. In the order dated 21.12.2020, it is not recorded that earlier summon and bailable warrant has been served upon the petitioner or not. The learned Principal Sessions Judge only on the submission of the A.P.P. that the petitioner is disposing of the movable property, has accepted the finding of the trial court. It transpires that earlier summon and bailable warrant were not served upon the petitioner and just after dates, non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued against the petitioner vide order dated 21.12.2020.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner will appear before the concerned court on any date fixed by this Court.

¶15

In view of the above facts and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will appear before the concerned court, the impugned orders dated 21.12.2020, 06.03.2021 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Giridih in Gandey P.S. Case No.23/2020 and the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Revision No.34/2021 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned court on 12.11.2021. If the petitioner appears on the said date before the concerned court, the concerned court shall take into consideration that the petitioner appear before the court now and will take decision, in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order

¶16

-3-

¶17

passed by this Court today. It is desirable that if any petition is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and

¶19

disposed of.

¶20

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶21

Ajay/

Manoj Modi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Modi 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

Shashi Bhushan Samad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indrajeet Kaur Alias Monalisha and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Balbir Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagat Narayan Upadhayay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lalita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitu Jindal Vs the State of Jharkhand