Anjan Kumar Pandey @ Nicky Pandey @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 624 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    Cr.M.P. No. 2536 of 2020
                                                -------

Anjan Kumar Pandey @ Nicky Pandey @ Nicky .... Petitioner(s).

                                                    Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                             .... Opp. Party(s).
                                           ------
           CORAM         :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                               Through: Video Conferencing
                                                    ------
           For the Petitioner(s)          : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate.
                                             Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate.
           For the State                  : Md. Hatim, A.P.P.
                                          .........
04/09.02.2021:           The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which

has been held through video conferencing today at 11:00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.

Perused the impugned order dated 16.10.2020, whereby, the SDJM, Bermo at Tenughat in most mechanical way, issued the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C in connection with Dugda P.S. Case No. 38/2020 (G.R. NO. 961/2020). Even the guidelines and principle given by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand) has not been followed.

An explanation was called for from the Magistrate concerned who explains and admits that subjective satisfaction has not been recorded in the order impugned. Further the details of the record, which has been mentioned in the explanation is not there in the order impugned. If the situation of the record, which has been narrated in the explanation, would have been reflected in the order impugned, no occasion would have arisen to call for an explanation.

The impugned order, as stated earlier, is non-speaking and the same is most cryptic. Further no date and time has been mentioned as to when the petitioner has to appear before the court below.

Since the order impugned is absolutely cryptic and the same is not in consonance with the order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand), the impugned order dated 16.10.2020 is set aside.

The matter is remitted to the court below to pass order afresh in accordance with law and also in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand).

Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.

The explanation sent by the court below is accepted. However the concerned Magistrate should be cautious in future while passing the judicial order and the same should not be passed mechanically.

       Anu/-C.P.-3                                                             (ANANDA SEN, J.)