Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 866 of 2021
Rakesh Gupta, aged about 33 years, son of Sri Arun Kumar Gupta,
presently resident of Karmatar, P.O. Karmatar, P.S. Jamtara, District-
Jamtara ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Subodh Bauri ...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Tirpathy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
05/Dated: 25/08/2021
Heard Mr. B.M. Tirpathy, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Rohit Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suraj Verma,
learned counsel for the State and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for
the O.P. No. 2.
2. This 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. None of the parties have complained
about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent these
matters have been heard.
3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order
dated 16.03.2021 whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been
issued against the petitioner in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No.
01/2020.
4. Mr. B.M. Tirpathy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
draws the attention of the Court to the impugned order dated
16.03.2021 and submits that the trial court has not taken care of
judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @
Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2)
JLJR 712. He further submits that although the learned court below has
recorded in the impugned order that he has gone through the entire
record but according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the
trial court has not taken care of the materials on record as in order dated
19.02.2021 of the said case there is mention of Criminal Appeal (Sj) No.
748 of 2020 whereby the Hon'ble High Court directed the office to call for
neatly typed copy of the case diary and this fact has been recorded in
order dated 19.02.2021. He submits that anticipatory bail of the petitioner
has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court being Criminal Appeal (Sj)
No. 748 of 2020 which is still pending. He submits that the learned court
below has not taken care of this fact in the impugned order dated
16.03.2021.
5. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that
there is no illegality in the impugned order and satisfactory satisfaction of
the Court is there. He submits that everything is there in the impugned
order.
6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits
that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the trial court has
considered every aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order.
He submits that date and time are reflected in the impugned order and
merely no indication of place does not mean that order passed under
section 82 Cr.P.C. is bad in law.
7. On perusal of impugned order dated 16.03.2021, it transpires
that the Court has indicated almost the entire facts and has exercised its
power under section 82 Cr.P.C. In the impugned order it has been
recorded that the Court has gone through the entire record. On perusal of
supplementary affidavit whereby order dated 19.02.2021 of the
concerned Court has been brought on record which goes to show that the
petitioner has approached the High Court in Cr. Appeal (Sj.) No. 748 of
2020 in which vide order dated 10.02.2021 neatly typed case diary was
called for and thereafter process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued
by the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 on the application of I.O. On
perusal of order dated 16.03.2021, the Court comes to the conclusion
that the trial court has almost considered all facts in the said order. To
pass such order, the trial court has not taken care of order dated
19.02.2021 passed in that case by the concerned court which speaks
about filing of Cr. Appeal (Sj) No. 748 of 2020. There is no doubt that on
merely filing of the anticipatory bail application where there is no stay,
the Court will not proceed but the filing of Cr. Appeal (Sj) No. 748 of
2020 has come in order dated 19.02.2021. The impugned order has been
passed on 16.03.2021 almost within one month of receiving of that order.
The petitioner has already taken remedy under law.
8. Accordingly, impugned order dated 16.03.2021 passed in
SC/ST Case No. 01 of 2020 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the
court of learned Special Judge, Jamtara to proceed afresh in accordance
with law.
9. The criminal miscellaneous application stands allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
