Dismissed¶19

Fahim Ansari Alias Pappu v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Mar 2024Cr.Rev./53/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi — Cri. Revision No. 53 of 2019 (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.): revision against ADJ-III Dhanbad order dated 22.09.2018 in S.T. No. 340A/2014 allowing Section 216 Cr.P.C. application adding charge Section 376(e) IPC and additional charges Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 120B IPC; trial at fag end (six of seven witnesses examined); adjournment refused; petition dismissed; pending I.A. closed.

What did the court decide?

The Court was not inclined to adjourn the matter at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, considering that the trial is at the fag end and that the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 09.11.2023. ¶15

Fahim Ansari Alias Pappu Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cri. Revision No. 53 of 2019

¶3

Fahim Ansari @ Fahim Ahmad @ Pappu, aged about 30 years, S/o Nasir Ahmad, R/o Chirkunda, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda, Dist. Dhanbad

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Umesh Ram, S/o Late Jawahar Prasad, R/o Panchmahli, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda, Dist. Dhanba d … … Opp. Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶8

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Advocate ---

¶9

10/15^th March 2024 1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶10

2. This revision application has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 22.09.2018 passed by the learned ADJ-III, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 340A/2014 whereby the learned trial Court has been pleased to allow the application preferred by the prosecution under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for addition of charge under Section 376(e) of the Indian Penal Code has been allowed and resultantly the learned trial Court has directed to frame additional charges as against the petitioner under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

3. As per office note, the requisite for service of notice upon opposite party

¶12

No. 2 in terms of order dated 09.11.2023 has not been filed.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment to comply order dated 09.11.2023.

¶14

5. A report has been received from the court concerned that as on 19.10.2023, out of seven charge-sheeted witnesses, six were already examined.

¶15

6. Considering the fact that the trial is at the fag end and the fact that the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 09.11.2023, this Court is not

¶16

¶17

inclined to adjourn the matter at the request of the learned counsel for the

¶18

petitioner.

¶19

7. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.

¶20

8. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶21

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through

¶22