Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

(2025:JHHC:34325)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.803 of 2025

------

Deepak Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of Ratneshwar Singh, resident of 10 MF, III- S, 2/22 Dindli, M.I.G., Near Shere Punjab Chowk, P.O. Adityapur, P.S. Adityapur, District SeraikelaKharsawan 831013, Jharkhand … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Kallol Bhattacharjee, son of Late Bishwanath Bhattacharjee, resident of 5, Najrul Path, Tank Road, Uliyan, Kadma, P.O. Kadma, P.S. Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 :Ms. Prachi Pradipti, Advocate (Through V.C.)

¶10

------

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

By the Court:- I.A. No.15111 of 2025

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

¶16

Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken

¶17

up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . ) Cr.M.P. No.803 of 2025

¶19

¶20

Cr. M.P. No.803 of 2025

¶21

(2025:JHHC:34325)

¶22

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with three fold prayers (i) to quash the order dated 30.11.2023 in connection with C.C.C. No.08 of 2019 (arising out of C/1 280 of 2016) by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner consequent upon cancellation of his bail, (ii) to quash the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur in connection with C.C.C. No.08 of 2019 (arising out of C/1 280 of 2016) by which proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner- who is the accused person of the said case and (iii) to quash the order dated 12.09.2024 by which attachment order of the property of the petitioner has been passed.

¶23

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press the prayer to quash the order dated 30.11.2023 and undertakes that the petitioner will surrender before the learned trial court on 27.11.2025 to which date the case is next fixed and will pray for regular bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the prayer to quash the order dated 30.11.2023 is rejected as not pressed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court on 27.11.2025 and in case the petitioner prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the trial court without being prejudiced by this order.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as yet no property of the petitioner has been attached, hence, the petitioner does

¶26

¶27

Cr. M.P. No.803 of 2025

¶28

(2025:JHHC:34325)

¶29

not press the prayer to quash the order dated 12.09.2024 and confines his prayer to quash the order dated 18.05.2024 only.

¶30

Accordingly, the prayer to quash the order dated 12.09.2024 is rejected as not pressed.

¶31

So far as the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur in connection with C.C.C. No.08 of 2019 (arising out of C/1 280 of 2016) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the said order, the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued without following the due process of law and without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and that too without even mentioning any time and place for appearance of the petitioner- who is the accused person of the case concerned. Hence, it is submitted that the said order dated 18.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur in connection with C.C.C. No.08 of 2019 (arising out of C/1 280 of 2016), be quashed and set aside.

¶32

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur in connection with C.C.C. No.08 of 2019 (arising out of C/1 280 of 2016) and submit that the very fact that the learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., goes to show that the petitioner was supposed to appear before the learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur on any day after thirty (30) days from the date of

¶33

¶34

Cr. M.P. No.803 of 2025

¶35

(2025:JHHC:34325)

¶36

proclamation of the notice. Hence, it is submitted that there being no illegality in the said order dated 18.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur in connection with C.C.C. No.08 of 2019 (arising out of C/1 280 of 2016), this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶37

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.; must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., it must mention the time and place for appearance of the accused in respect of whom such proclamation is issued. As already indicated above since the learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner who is the accused person of the case concerned, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur has committed a grave illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by

¶38

4 Cr. M.P. No.803 of 2025

¶39

(2025:JHHC:34325)

¶40

learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur in connection with C.C.C. No.08 of 2019 (arising out of C/1 280 of 2016), be quashed and set aside.

¶41

Accordingly, the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Cyber), Jamshedpur in connection with C.C.C. No.08 of 2019 (arising out of C/1 280 of 2016), is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶42