Jharkhand High Court
Md. Shoeb Ansari @ Shoeb Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2021
Md. Shoeb Ansari @ Shoeb Ansari .... 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. Afaque Rashidi, Advocate.
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
------
02/22.02.2021: The order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st
Class, Bokaro in connection with Mahilla P.S. Case No. 04/2020 issuing the
process under Section 82 Cr.P.C has been challenged.
2. The order impugned suggests that the process were issued on the
ground that the petitioner, being the sole accused, has been named in the FIR
for the offence under Sections 354A, 354D, 417, 504, 506 and 509 IPC on the
ground that non-baiable warrant of arrest has been returned un-executed and
thus this Court felt it proper to issue process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. This is not
the requirement of law while issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The
subjective satisfaction as mandated by law has not been recorded while issuing
the process. This Court has passed an order covering the entire issues in Cr.M.P.
No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of
Jharkhand). In spite of circulation of the aforesaid order, individually to all Judicial
Officers, in the instant case on 17.12.2020 the order impugned has been passed
mechanically, which clearly suggests that the Judicial Magistrate has not gone
through the order passed by this Court involving the aforesaid issue. This is most
unfortunate.
3. The order impugned is cryptic and absolutely in contravention of the
order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors.
Vs. The State of Jharkhand).
4. Further Form-IV Cr.P.C has also been brought on record. In Form-IV
Cr.P.C, no date, time and place has been mentioned as to when and where the
petitioner has to appear in pursuant to proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Putting the date, time and place for appearance of the accused is mandatory
statutory provision, which cannot be done away with. The order has been passed by
the Magistrate is in a most casual manner ignoring the provision of law and also the
judgment of this Court. This type of action is highly deprecated by this Court. The
liberty of a person has been taken away without following the procedure as laid
down by the Statute, which is impermissible. The Judicial Magistrate should be
cautious in future.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am inclined to allow this petition. The
order impugned dated 17.12.2020 is set aside.
6. 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).
7. Let this order be placed before the Registrar General, High Court of
Jharkhand, Ranchi so that the same can also be communicated to the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Bokaro and the Magistrate concerned, who has passed
the order impugned.
Anu/-C.P.3. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
