Rohit Raman vs Union Of India Through Cbi
2021 Latest Caselaw 4742 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Criminal Revision No. 384 of 2018
Rohit Raman                                                                    ... Petitioner
                                         Versus

Union of India through CBI                                            ... Opposite Party
                                   With
                    Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2018
Rajesh Prasad                                                                  ... Petitioner
                                         Versus

The Union of India through CBI                                        ... Opposite Party
                                  With
                    Criminal Revision No. 464 of 2018
Pankaj Srivastava                                                              ... Petitioner
                                         Versus

The State of Jharkhand through Central Bureau of Investigation
                                             ... Opposite Party
                             -------

(Through V.C )

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate [in Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2018]

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate [in Criminal Revision No. 464 of 2018]

Mrs. Shweta Singh, Advocate [in Criminal Revision No. 384 of 2018]

For the CBI : Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, Advocate

-------

Order No.16/Dated: 10th December 2021

On 20th November 2021 the following order was passed by this Court:

"Mrs. J. Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2018 has already filed short synopsis and written notes of arguments.

2. Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, the learned vice-counsel who represents Mrs. Nitu Sinha, the learned counsel for CBI, seeks adjournment on her behalf.

3. On a Court's query, Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, the learned vice-counsel fairly submits that since today morning only he received instruction from Mrs. Nitu Sinha, the learned counsel, to seek an adjournment in these matters on the ground of her personal difficulties, he could not contact the other learned counsels appearing for the petitioners.

4. In these criminal revision petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order by which their petitions seeking discharge under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been 2 Criminal Revision No. 384 of 2018 & analogous cases

rejected.

5. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed applications seeking permission to challenge the order framing charge against them and these applications were allowed by an order dated 18.10.2019.

6. Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, the learned vice-counsel, has no information regarding stage of the trial.

7. The learned counsel for CBI shall obtain complete information in this regard and file an affidavit within two weeks.

8. On the request of Mr. Bhupal Krishna Prasad, the learned vice-counsel, hearing of these criminal revision petitions is postponed for 10th December 2021 to be listed under the heading "Final Disposal"."

2. A status report has been brought on record by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

3. Mrs. Shweta Singh, the learned counsel, states that on 5th November 2021 Rohit Raman who is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 384 of 2018 has collected the case records from her chamber and she has now no instruction to appear in this matter on behalf of the petitioner Rohit Raman.

4. Registry to communicate the next date of hearing to the petitioner Rohit Raman.

5. It is indicated that if on the next date of hearing the petitioner Rohit Raman is not represented through his counsel, a bailable warrant of arrest shall be issued against him.

6. Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel, appears for Rajesh Prasad who is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 375 of 2018 and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel, appears for Pankaj Srivastava who is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 464 of 2018.

7. The learned counsels refer to the judgment in "Sanjiv Kumar v. State of H.P" (1999) 2 SCC 288.

8. On the basis of the judgment in "Sanjiv Kumar" a contention is raised that merely on suspicion a charge under section 212 of the Indian penal Code cannot be framed rather it must be shown to the Court, prima-facie, that with an intention to shield an accused from legal punishment one has screened him.

9. Post these matters on 28th January 2022 under the same heading.

10. In the meantime, further proceeding in RC.11(S)/2015- SC.I/CBI/New Delhi pending in the Court of Special Judicial 3 Criminal Revision No. 384 of 2018 & analogous cases

Magistrate, CBI, Ranchi shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Amit/