Jharkhand High Court
Devanand Oraon vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 13 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 139 of 2021
Devanand Oraon ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
For the Intervenor : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent-C.B.I. : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I.
-----
07/13.08.2021. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv
Ranjan, learned Advocate General for the respondent-State, Mr. R.S.
Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the intervenor and Mr. Rajiv Sinha,
learned A.S.G.I. for the respondent-CBI.
This criminal writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing
in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation
arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.
On 17.06.2021, this matter was taken up and the State was directed
to file the counter affidavit and the Court also directed to provide security to
the parents of late Rupa Tirkey and the matter was fixed for 29.07.2021.
On 29.07.2021, the State sought four weeks' further time for filing the
counter affidavit. The Court on that day directed the Director General of
Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj to
produce entire records of UD Case No.09/2021 registered on 03.05.2021 in
sealed cover, by the next date of listing and it was open to the State to file
counter affidavit as well as response to one I.A., which has been filed for
intervention in the matter.
Pursuant to the direction given by this Court vide order dated
29.07.2021, the documents of UD Case No.09/2021 and F.I.R. No.127/2021
was handed over to the Registry of this Court in sealed cover, which has
been handed over by the Protocol of this Court to one of the staff of the
undersigned and the same was directed to be kept on record vide order
dated 09.08.2021.
On 11.08.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Advocate General have almost completed their arguments and the matter
was adjourned for two days for further argument by rest of the counsels.
Today when the matter was taken up, at the outset Mr. Rajiv Ranjan,
learned Advocate General submits that after end of the proceeding on
11.08.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner was saying that 200% the
matter is going to be allowed. He submits that let this matter go out of list
of this Court. The other State counsel Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G.-II
supported the arguments of the learned Advocate General.
When the Court asked the learned Advocate General to file the
affidavit to that effect, he submits that he will not file the affidavit and said
that what he orally submitted that is sufficient.
Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the respondent-CBI
very fairly submits that this is not the way to address the Court and what
has happened today that directly casts aspersion on the majesty of the
Court. This should be stopped. This submission has been supported by
Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor.
Merely on such submission of the learned Advocate General, the
Court is not required to recuse from the case as nothing should come in the
way of dispensation of justice or discharge of duty as a Judge and judicial
decision-making. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and others , reported in
(2020) 6 SCC 304. Paragraph 47 of the said judgment is quoted herein
below:
"47. Recusal is not to be forced by any litigant to choose a
Bench. It is for the Judge to decide to recuse. The
embarrassment of hearing the lengthy arguments for recusal
should not be a compelling reason to recuse. The law laid
down in various decisions has compelled me not to recuse
from the case and to perform the duty irrespective of the
consequences, as nothing should come in the way of
dispensation of justice or discharge of duty as a Judge and
judicial decision-making. There is no room for prejudice or
bias. Justice has to be pure, untainted, uninfluenced by any
factor, and even decision for recusal cannot be influenced by
outside forces. However, if I recuse, it will be a dereliction of
duty, injustice to the system, and to other Judges who are or
to adorn the Bench(es) in the future. I have taken an
informed decision after considering the nitty-gritty of the
points at issue, and very importantly, my conscience. In my
opinion, I would be committing a grave blunder by recusal in
the circumstances, on the grounds prayed for, and posterity
will not forgive me down the line for setting a bad precedent.
It is only for the interest of the judiciary (which is supreme)
and the system (which is nulli secundus) that has compelled
me not to recuse."
The Court only with a view to faith that the common man reposes in
the judiciary sending this matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on
administrative side.
In such a situation, this Court thinks it proper to place this matter
before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side for
administrative decision.
Registry of this Court is directed to place this matter before Hon'ble
the Chief Justice immediately.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
