Dismissed¶27

Jay Prasad Alias Jugger Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 May 2024Cr.M.P./71/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 82 Cr.P.C proclamation upheld; Section 482 CrPC quashing petition dismissed; SC/ST P.S. case no. 10 of 2023; proclamation order dated 30.11.2023 by Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST) Cases Jamshedpur; accused avoided appearing by 12.01.2024 10.30 AM; no application-of-mind defect found; Cr.M.P. No. 71 of 2024 dismissed; High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary; 1 May 2024.

What did the court decide?

Refuting the petitioners' contention, the Court finds that the trial court applied its mind: it took into consideration the materials placed before it and, basing upon the same, formed an opinion and came to the conclusion that there was necessity for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., and also mentioned the place and time for appearance of the petitioners. ¶26

Jay Prasad Alias Jugger Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is a cryptic, non-speaking order reflecting non-application of judicial mind, with no subjective satisfaction recorded, such as to justify its quashing. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The Court records that the petitioners, instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge by appearing in the court concerned, avoided appearing within the stipulated time without any plausible reason.

¶26

Key takeaways

After going through the impugned order, the Court finds that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the trial court that there is necessity for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.ratio¶26
The Court dismisses the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition as being without any merit.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi — Cr.M.P. No. 71 of 2024 (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; decision dated 1st May, 2024). Seven accused persons of SC/ST P.S. case no. 10 of 2023 petitioned under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 30.11.2023 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, (SC/ST) Cases, Jamshedpur, by which a proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C was issued against them, arguing that the impugned order was cryptic and non-speaking and reflected non-application of judicial mind with no subjective satisfaction recorded. Holding: the Court found that the trial court had taken into consideration the materials placed before it (the I.O.'s petition with the service report of the non-bailable warrant) and had concluded on that basis that issuance of the proclamation was necessary, specifying place and time of appearance (on or before 12.01.2024 at 10.30 AM); the petitioners, instead of submitting to the trial court's jurisdiction, avoided appearing within the stipulated time without any plausible reason. Finding no justifiable reason to interfere with the trial court's conclusion of necessity, the Court dismissed the petition as without merit.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 71 of 2024

¶2

Jay Prasad @ Jugger Prasad, aged about 20 years, son of Pradeep Prasad Sinha, resident of 43, Road No- 3, B Block, Bagunhatu, Post Baridih, Police Station Baridih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶3

Arjun Singh @ Arjun @ Chhotu, aged about 19 years, son of Vishwanath Namata, resident of House No-140, B- Block, Bagunhatu, Post Baridih, Police Station Baridih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶4

Pradeep Prasad @ Pradeep Kumar, aged about 59 years, son of Late Ayodhaya Prasad, resident of 43, Road No- 3, B Block, Bagunhatu, Post Baridih, Police Station Baridih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶5

Rajesh Prasad, aged about 50 years, son of Late Ayodhaya Prasad, resident of 43, Road No 3, B Block, Bagunhatu, Post Baridih, Police Station Baridih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶6

Aman Kumar @ Cheeta @ Handi, aged about 18 years, son of Rajesh Prasad, Road No- 3, B Block, Bagunhatu, Post Baridih, Police Station Baridih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶7

Vishwanath Namata, aged about 41 years, son of Badri Singh, resident of 140, Road No- 3, B Block, Bagunhatu, Post Baridih, Police Station Baridih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶8

Karan Singh @ Karan @ Chunnu, aged about 20 years, son of Vishwanath Namata, resident of 144, Road No-3, B Block, Bagunhatu, Post Baridih, Police Station Baridih, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶9

…... Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, Addl. PP

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶16

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.11.2023 passed in connection SC/ST P.S. case no. 10 of 2023

¶17

¶18

Cr.M.P. No. 71 of 2024

¶19

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, (SC/ST) Cases Jamshedpur, by which, the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C has been issued, inter alia , against the petitioners, who are the accused persons of that case.

¶20

The brief facts of the case is that the I.O. of the case, filed a petition along with the service report of the non-bailable warrant of arrest in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cumSpecial Judge, (SC/ST) Cases Jamshedpur, claiming that the accused persons of the case are absconding, hence, he prayed for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, (SC/ST) Cases Jamshedpur formed an opinion on the basis of the perusal of the record, that the materials in the record is sufficient for the court to reach to a conclusion for necessity for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C and directed the accused persons to appear before the court on or before 12.01.2024 at 10.30 AM or earlier and issued the said proclamation against the accused persons of the case, who are petitioners in this case.

¶21

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 30.11.2023, is a cryptic and non-speaking order and reflects non-application of judicial mind on the part of the learned court and no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the learned court below before issuing the proclamation under section 82 of Cr.P.C and is also silent whether the accused persons were present at their home or not, when the police reached the house of the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition, be allowed.

¶22

Learned Additional PP on the other hand vehemently, opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the learned court below has recorded his satisfaction on the basis of the service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest, which was available in the record, which is crystal clear from the impugned order itself, and after considering the materials placed before it, learned court below has come to the conclusion that the materials in the record

¶23

¶24

Cr.M.P. No. 71 of 2024

¶25

is sufficient for the trial court to reach to a conclusion that there is necessity for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C, hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C, hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶26

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this court finds that learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, (SC/ST) Cases Jamshedpur, has taken into consideration the materials placed before it and basing upon the same, formed an opinion and came to the conclusion that there is necessity for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C and also mentioned the place and time for appearance of the petitioners but the petitioners instead of submitting to the jurisdiction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, (SC/ST) Cases Jamshedpur by appearing in the court concerned, has avoided to appear within the time stipulated by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, (SC/ST) Cases Jamshedpur; before the said court, without any plausible reason. This Court after going through the impugned order finds that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, (SC/ST) Cases Jamshedpur that there is necessity for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶28

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶29

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 1^st May, 2024 Smita /AFR

¶30

¶31

Cr.M.P. No. 71 of 2024

Jay Prasad Alias Jugger Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prasad Alias Jugger Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aayush Raj Vs Bank of India through Its Chairman

Ms Annapurna Utility Services Pvt. Ltd. through Its Proprietor Chanchal Bhattacharyee Vs South Eastern Railway through Its General Manager

Syed Irfan Yazdani Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Guriya Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Sudhir Kumar Singh Alias Sudhir Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Puja Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand