Petitioner challenged his alleged illegal confinement and sought quashing of the order taking cognizance in an Arms Act case. The court held that the alleged wrongful confinement is a disputed question of fact requiring trial evidence.
Petition for illegal confinement and quashing of order taking cognizance dismissed; no relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 17 of 2023
Sakil Akhtar ..... … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... … Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. J.P. Jha, Sr. Advocate. : Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I. : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, A.C. to G.A.-I.
05/ 17.10.2023 Heard Mr. J.P. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned G.A.-I for the State.
-2-
order taking cognizance is bad in law. He further submits that the mobile phone of the petitioner was seized on 16.02.2022 in view of that there was no conversation as such, further case is made out. On these grounds, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may kindly be suitably compensated.
-3-
Further representation dated 27.02.2022, which was served on 28.02.2022 before the authorities and FIR was registered on 28.02.2022. If the illegal confinement was there why the petitioner’s family with effect from 16.02.2022 has not moved before the authorities immediately and moving belatedly on the day of FIR, it suggests that case of illegal confinement is being tried to be made out. Further the chargesheet has been submitted and thereafter the learned court has taken the cognizance and the crime is grievous in nature. There is no doubt, if a clear case of illegal confinement is made out, the courts are rising to the occasion and appropriate orders are being passed in view of Public View Remedy, however, in the case in hand, the disputed question of fact is involved, which cannot be appreciated by this court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he is required to move before the appropriate court by way of filing appropriate petition to make out a case of illegal confinement, which can be appreciated by way of leading evidence etc. The case of quashing is also not made out as the chargesheet has already been submitted and the learned court has also taken the cognizance and the allegations are under Sections 25(1B)(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act. So far as the contention of the petitioner with regard to mobile phone is concerned, that is also the disputed question of fact, as it is not the admitted fact that on 16.02.2022, the occurrence has taken place and the mobile was seized on the same day, which can be appreciated only by way of leading evidence before the competent court.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner suffered illegal confinement between 16.02.2022 and 28.02.2022 warranting relief under Article 226.
Whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the order taking cognizance in the Arms Act and CLA Act case.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sakil Akhtar
The State of Jharkhand
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
