Kundan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

( 2026:JHHC:9359 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3238 of 2024

------

Kundan Kumar, aged about 33 years, S/o Shri Raj Kumar Singh, R/o Pindergodia at Chas, P.O.-Chas, P.S.-Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand, Pin No.827013, Adhar No.3339 0186 4432.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand 2. Phulan Devi, wife of Shri Kundan Kumar, R/o Pindergodia at Chas, P.O.-Chas, P.S.-Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand, Pin No.827013.

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. (VC) For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate ------

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶13

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer the to quash and set aside the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Complaint Case No.1065 of 2021.

¶14

Perusal of the record reveals that on 20.09.2023, the non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued inter alia against the petitioner who is one of the co-accused person of the said Complaint Case No.1065 of 2021 and was returned by the police with the report that the petitioner has escaped from his house to evade his arrest and on that date, the learned

¶15

1 Cr. M.P. No.3238 of 2024

¶16

( 2026:JHHC:9359 )

¶17

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro passed order for issuance of nonbailable warrant of arrest inter alia against the petitioner and that order has not been challenged and the same has attained finality. On 18.12.2023, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has directed for compliance of the earlier order dated 20.09.2023. Thereafter, the complainant furnished the present address of the petitioner and non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued in the said address.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 18.12.2023 is bad in law, as the petitioner was in jail custody in connection with Bermo Mahila P.S. Case No.06 of 2023 arising out of G.R. Case No.283 of 2023. It is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

¶19

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the nonbailable warrant of arrest was first ordered to be issued against the petitioner vide order dated 20.09.2023 in the said Complaint Case No.1065 of 2021 and the petitioner has not challenged that order and the said order has attained finality and in the order dated 18.12.2023 only the order, which was passed on 20.09.2023, was directed to be complied with and the same has been complied with, so there is no illegality in the order dated 18.12.2023. Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶20

¶21

Cr. M.P. No.3238 of 2024

¶22

( 2026:JHHC:9359 )

¶23

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this court finds that the submission on behalf of the learned Spl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 to be correct. In fact, the non-bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued for the first time inter alia against the petitioner on 20.09.2023 and the said order is not under challenge and in the order dated 18.12.2023 only a direction has been given to comply the said order dated 20.09.2023. Therefore, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Complaint Case No.1065 of 2021; more so because there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner ever intimated the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro that he is in custody in connection with some other case nor he got him remanded in this case, while being in custody in any other case, by filing appropriate application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. Therefore, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to accede to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P.

¶24