Criminal petition seeking to quash an order of issue of process against an accused alleged to be absconding. The High Court held that the trial court acted legally based on police reports of the accused being absent during raids and lacking intimation regarding pending bail.
Petition dismissed as lacking merit; order quashing application rejected.
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.
1
Cr.M.P. No.985 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 985 of 2023
Firoz Khan, Age -52 years, S/o –Imamuddin Khan, R/o –House No. 22B, Line No. -04, Dhatkidih, B Block, P.O. +P.S. –Bistupur, Dist –East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Prakash Jha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P.
By the Court:-
2
Cr.M.P. No.985 of 2023
alia against the petitioner. The execution report of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued vide order dated 10.06.2022 against the petitioner and other co-accused persons were attached with the said petition which shows that the accused persons were absconding and it was not possible to arrest them. The learned S.D.J.M. perused the case diary and from which it appeared that after getting the information of non-bailable warrant of arrest, the I.O. took efforts to arrest the accused persons by raiding the houses of the accused persons on 14.09.2022, 27.02.2023 and 28.02.2023 which has been mentioned in the case diary but the said accused persons were found absent from their residence and were absconding out of fear of arrest. In the execution report of the non-bailable warrant of arrest, the I.O. mentioned that the accused persons were absconding in the fear of arrest. The I.O. also intimated that the appearance of the accused persons was highly essential to conclude the investigation. On being satisfied, the learned S.D.J.M. allowed the prayer for issuance of the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
3
Cr.M.P. No.985 of 2023
petitioner is not absconding and he was always before the government authorities but on being asked by this Court, as to before which government authority, the petitioner was, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is unable to say on what basis, such averment on oath has been made in para-8 of this criminal miscellaneous petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Order dated 08.02.2023, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.3393 of 2022 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has observed as under:-
“4. Xxxxxx Although the execution report was received, but the fact that was brought to notice of this Court that the petitioner had earlier moved in anticipatory bail application and considering this aspect of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner was avoiding the process of court and not appearing before the Court.”
Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that that the order dated 15.03.2023, passed in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 387 of 2021, by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur be quashed.
4
Cr.M.P. No.985 of 2023
authorities but he is in fact absconding and there was ample material before the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur to be satisfied that the petitioner was absconding and as the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur was never intimated about any pendency of anticipatory bail application of the petitioner pending before this Court, hence no illegality has been committed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
5
Cr.M.P. No.985 of 2023
to suggest that the petitioner is absconding. Hence, this Court do
not find any illegality in the impugned order.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th April, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Sessions Judge commited illegality in issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. despite petitioner claims of not absconding.
Whether prior non-intimation of anticipatory bail pendency to the trial court vitiates the issuance of process.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Firoz Khan
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
