Allowed¶25

Saumik Dasgupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jan 2024Cr.M.P./14/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr.M.P. No. 14 of 2024 | High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi | Anil Kumar Choudhary J. | decided 15.01.2024 | Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition by Saumik Dasgupta @ Soumik Das Gupta to quash proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. issued on 30.11.2023 by Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur in C/2 Case No. 761 of 2004 (Split-2); no non-bailable warrant execution report on record; proclamation order found baseless, quashed; petitioner to surrender before trial court within four weeks; Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8657 of 2023 noted; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the order dated 30.11.2023 issuing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.; petitioner directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks ¶25

Saumik Dasgupta Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing and setting aside of the order dated 30.11.2023 issuing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.; petitioner directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. issued against the petitioner was justified, given that no execution report of the non-bailable warrant of arrest and no other material showing the petitioner to be absconding or concealing himself was placed on record.

¶21

Court's answer

The observation of the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest is without any basis, as no execution report of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued to the police and no other material supporting that conclusion was placed on record.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur in connection with C/2 Case No. 761 of 2004 (Split-2) is not sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶22

Key takeaways

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from the date of this order, irrespective of whether his anticipatory bail application is allowed or not; failing which it will be presumed that he is absconding and concealing himself to evade his arrest, and the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Proclamation under S. 82 Cr.P.C. — quashed for want of basis (Jharkhand HC, Cr.M.P. No. 14 of 2024, Anil Kumar Choudhary J.: petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. by Saumik Dasgupta @ Soumik Das Gupta, accused in C/2 Case No. 761 of 2004 (Split-2), to quash the proclamation order of 30.11.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur). Holding: as no execution report of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued to the police and no other material showing the petitioner to be absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest was placed on record, the Special Judge's observation that he was absconding or concealing himself was without any basis; the proclamation order was therefore not sustainable in law and was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks irrespective of the outcome of his Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8657 of 2023, failing which it would be presumed that he is absconding and concealing himself to evade arrest and the Special Judge would pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Petition allowed.

¶1

1 Cr.M.P. No.14 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 14 of 2024

¶3

Saumik Dasgupta @ Soumik Das Gupta, aged about 55 years, son of Ashok Dasgupta, resident of 21 (30), Harisava Road, Barrackpore (M), North 24 Parganas, Nonachandanpukur, P.O.- Nonachandanpukur, P.S.- Nonachandanpukur, Dist.- North 24 Parganas (West Bengal).

¶4

.... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

…. Opp. Party

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Addl. P.P.

¶11

By the Court:-

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.11.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur in connection with C/2 Case No. 761 of 2004 (Split-2), by which the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. Though other prayers has also been made in this petition but the learned counsel for the petitioner abandons the other prayers and confines his prayer only to quash the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur in connection with C/2 Case No. 761 of 2004 (Split-2).

¶14

¶15

Cr.M.P. No.14 of 2024

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material in the record to suggest that non-bailable warrant was ever executed and there is no police report to suggest that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it appears that the police to whom non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued for execution has not submitted any report hence, the basis of the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest cannot be executed is baseless. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8657 of 2023 and in any case, he will appear before the learned trial court within four weeks. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the sales executive of Pharmacia Laboratories but he has resigned since long from M/s. Pharmacia Laboratories and has no relation at present with M/s. Pharmacia Laboratories, hence, the petitioner was not aware that he is an accused of the C/2 Case No. 761 of 2004 (Split-2) and he is a law abiding citizen. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur in connection with C/2 Case No. 761 of 2004 (Split-2) be quashed and set aside.

¶17

Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned

¶18

¶19

Cr.M.P. No.14 of 2024

¶20

Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur in connection with C/2 Case No. 761 of 2004 (Split-2) and submits that the very fact that the petitioner who is the sales executive of M/s. Pharmacia Laboratories is evading appearance in the trial court even though his former employer M/s. Pharmacia Laboratories is appearing in the trial court goes to show that he is evading his arrest. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶21

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case where there is no execution report of the nonbailable warrant of arrest issued to the police and no report has been submitted by the police officer concerned or anyone else placed any materials in the record; for the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is evading or concealing himself to evade his arrest; this Court is of the considered view that observation of the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest; is without any basis.

¶22

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur in connection with C/2 Case No. 761 of 2004 (Split-2) is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside.

¶23

4 Cr.M.P. No.14 of 2024

¶24

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court, irrespective of the fact; either his anticipatory bail is allowed or not; within four weeks from the date of this order before the learned trial court failing which, it will be presumed that he is absconding and concealing himself to evade his arrest and in such an eventuality, the learned Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetics), Jamshedpur will pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶25

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶27

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15^th January, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Saumik Dasgupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saumik Dasgupta v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Virendra Prasad Mehta Vs The Chairman Jharkhand Academic Council And Ors.

Ram Lakhan Mehta And Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Panchayati Raj Ministry And Ors.

Management of Tubes Division O Vs Their Workman Shri Goutam Giri

Dr Dina Nath Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samir Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Manzar Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand