Allowed¶19

Shambhu Bansfore Alias Shambhu Basfor v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Feb 2025Cr.M.P./44/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of trial court order; simultaneous issue of processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. with non-bailable warrant; first date after commitment; no summons issued; accused on bail during investigation and charge-sheet; ST No. 315 of 2008; GR No. 332 of 2004; Baliapur PS Case No. 13 of 2004; sections 323, 324, 341, 307, 448 IPC; Additional Sessions Judge FTC-VIth Dhanbad; order dated 02.08.2008 set aside; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Cr.M.P. No. 44 of 2025; Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.; decided 13.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.08.2008 passed in ST No. 315 of 2008 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, Dhanbad set aside; petition allowed at the stage of admissions itself. ¶19

Shambhu Bansfore Alias Shambhu Basfor Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 02.08.2008 passed in ST No. 315 of 2008 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, Dhanbad set aside; petition allowed at the stage of admissions itself.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 02.08.2008 passed in ST No. 315 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, Dhanbad — issuing process under sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. along with a non-bailable warrant on the first date after commitment, without issuing any summons to the petitioner — was illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶14

Court's answer

On the very date of registration of ST No. 315 of 2008 — the first date after commitment — the learned trial court, without issuing summons to the petitioner, exhausted all the processes, although the petitioner was all along on bail during investigation and submission of charge-sheet.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The aforesaid order is apparently against the mandate of law; therefore, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed at the stage of admissions itself.

¶19

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 02.08.2008 passed in ST No. 315 of 2008 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, Dhanbad is hereby set-aside.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing — Trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, Dhanbad) in ST No. 315 of 2008, arising out of GR No. 332 of 2004 / Baliapur PS Case No. 13 of 2004 (offences under Ss. 323, 324, 341, 307 & 448 IPC) — On the very date of registration of the case (02.08.2008), being the first date after commitment, and without issuing any summons to the accused, the trial court ordered issue of a fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest and process, and processes under Ss. 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. were issued simultaneously with the non-bailable warrant — The petitioner had been on bail all along during investigation and submission of the charge-sheet — Held, such simultaneous exhaustion of all coercive processes without summons is apparently against the mandate of law — Petition allowed at the stage of admissions itself; impugned order dated 02.08.2008 set aside.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 44 of 2025

¶2

------

¶3

Shambhu Bansfore @ Shambhu Basfor, aged about 44 years, S/o Rajender Basfor, R/o Q. No. RM 4-293, Ranga Mtiya, PO & PS: Sindri, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

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

¶6

------

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate; Mr. Subhneet Jha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P

¶10

------

¶11

Order No.03/Dated: 13.02.2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing and setting-aside the order dated 02.08.2008 passed in ST No. 315 of 2008 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTCVIth, Dhanbad wherein the learned trial Court has issued the process under sections 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in connection with Baliapur PS Case No. 13 of 2004 lodged for the offence under sections 323,324,341,307 and 448 IPC.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, record of GR No. 332 of 2004, arising out of Baliapur PS Case No. 13 of 2004, under sections 448, 341, 323,324 and 307 IPC was received in the Court of Sessions after commitment which was registered as S.T. No. 315 of 2018 and on the same day i.e. 02.08.2008 without issuing any summons for appearance of the accused/petitioner, the learned trial Court has passed an order that “……sole accused is absent. Issue fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest and process against accused fixing 22.8.2008 for appearance …..” . Accordingly, processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. along with non-bailable warrant of arrest have been issued simultaneously against the accused-petitioner. The aforesaid order is absolutely illegal and not warranted under law and cannot be justified in any corner.

¶15

The learned trial court has fragrantly ignored the relevant provisions of law and had passed a whimsical order without having any

¶16

regard to law and procedure, therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set-aside.

¶17

The learned APP has opposed the aforesaid submissions and defended the impugned order.

¶18

It appears that it was the first date after commitment of the case before the Court of Sessions and on the very date of registration of the case i.e. ST No. 315 of 2008 the learned trial court without issuing summons to the petitioner has exhausted all the processes although the petitioner was all along on bail during investigation and submission of charge-sheet.

¶19

The aforesaid order is apparently against the mandate of law, therefore, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed at the stage of admissions itself and impugned order dated 02.08.2008 passed in ST No. 315 of 2008 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, Dhanbad is hereby set-aside.

¶20

KNR/ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Shambhu Bansfore Alias Shambhu Basfor v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Bansfore Alias Shambhu Basfor 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

Chandrika Bhuiya Vs State of Jharkhand

Sanjeev Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shikha Bhatt Vs State of Jharkhand

Xxxx Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Yadav Alias Deepak Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Ohdar Vs the State of Jharkhand