Pradeep Bharadwaj Alias Pradeep Beltharia Vs the State of Jharkhand

( 2026:JHHC:6144 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3131 of 2023

Pradeep Bharadwaj @ Pradeep Belthariya, aged about 66 years, S/o Late Ram Sharan Beltharia, resident of Ranchi Road, P.O. –Marar, P.S. –Giddi, Ramgarh, District –Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶4

.... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Somnath Mukharjee, father’s name not known, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-division, Kujju (Mandu) Ramgarh, JSEB now JBVNL, P.O. & P.S. –Kujju, District –Ramgarh, Jharkhand. …. Opp. Parties

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kant Mishra, Advocate : Mr. D.K. Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, JUVNL

¶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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with several prayers but at the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner abandons all other prayers and confines his prayer only to quash the order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –I, Ramgarh in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 259 of 2005 corresponding to Electricity Case No. 1788 of 2005 whereby and where under the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner without fixing any time and place for appearance of the petitioner.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued by the

¶15

Cr.M.P. No.3131 of 2023

¶16

1

¶17

( 2026:JHHC:6144 )

¶18

said impugned order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –I, Ramgarh in Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 259 of 2005 corresponding to Electricity Case No. 1788 of 2005 without following the due process of law and without fixing any time and place for appearance of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –I, Ramgarh in Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 259 of 2005 corresponding to Electricity Case No. 1788 of 2005 is not in accordance with law. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –I, Ramgarh in Electricity Case No. 1788 of 2005 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶19

Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer and submits that the very fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge –I, Ramgarh has issued the proclamation goes to show that there is justifiable reason for issuing such proclamation against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶20

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials 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 person of the case 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

¶21

Cr.M.P. No.3131 of 2023

¶22

2

¶23

( 2026:JHHC:6144 )

¶24

mention the time and place for appearance of the accused person in respect of whom the written proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is made.

¶25

Now coming to the facts of the case, as already indicated above, since the learned Additional Sessions Judge –I, Ramgarh has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time and place for appearance of the petitioner in the order dated 29.03.2023. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –I, Ramgarh in connection with Ramgarh Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 259 of 2005 corresponding to Electricity Case No. 1788 of 2005 whereby the written proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued, is not sustainable in law.

¶26

Accordingly, the order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –I, Ramgarh in connection with Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No. 259 of 2005 corresponding to Electricity Case No. 1788 of 2005 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶27