Jharkhand High Court
O.P. Singh @ Om Prakash Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No.29 of 2021
----
O.P. Singh @ Om Prakash Singh ... Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State: Ms. Priya Shreshtha, A.P.P.
----
2/ 27.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel
appearing for the State through Video Conferencing. 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 complain in respect to the
audio and video clarity and quality.
2. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Bokaro Thermal
Police Station Case No.49 of 2020 (G.R. No.547 of 2020), by which processes
under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been issued.
3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in Md. Rustum
Alam @ Rustam & Others versus State of Jharkhand as reported in 2020
(2) JLJR 712, submits that there is no satisfaction recorded by the Court
below to the effect that the warrant of arrest could not be executed so far as
this petitioner is concerned. He submits that during the pendency of the
anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner before this Court, processes
under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been issued. He
submits that when the petitioner was pursuing the remedy available to him, as
per law, i.e., by filing an application for grant of anticipatory bail before this
Court, the Court below could not have issued processes under Section 82 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that by issuing processes under
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the right of the petitioner to
pursue his anticipatory bail application before this Court has been curtailed. He
submits that now by virtue of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of M.P. versus Pradeep Sharma, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171
and in the case of Lavesh versus State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8
SCC 730, now his anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer of the
petitioner and submits that after several raids the petitioner was not found at
his house and he was found absconding. Entire order reflects that the warrant
of arrest could not be executed and the petitioner was evading his arrest, and
as such, the Court had no other alternative than to issue processes under
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She submits that the judgment
passed by this Court has been followed and an appropriate and proper
speaking order has been passed while issuing processes under Section 82 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the impugned order.
I find that the warrant of arrest was issued on 08.07.2020 against the
petitioner. The Court below has recorded that a raid was conducted in the
house of the accused, but, the accused was not found there. Again on
15.07.2020, raid was conducted, but, the accused was not present. These
facts have been recorded by the Investigating Officer at paragraphs 215, 225,
226 and 237 of the Case Diary. It has also been mentioned that permanent
residence of the petitioner, which is in Bihar, was also raided, but, the
petitioner was not found there also, which fact has been mentioned at
paragraphs 239, 272, 278, 337, 371, 378, 393 of the Case Diary. Further in
paragraph 281, 288, 357, 364 of the Case Diary suggests that the
investigating officer had put continuous efforts to secure appearance of the
petitioner, but, on all occasions, petitioner was found absent and evading.
Fresh raid was also conducted on 18.12.2020 as has been mentioned at
paragraph 417 of the Case Diary. Relying on all these facts, the Court below
came to a conclusion that the petitioner is evading his arrest and he is
concealing himself to evade his arrest. Thus, the Court below issued
processes under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 22.12.2020
directing the petitioner to appear on 02.02.2021.
6. After going through the impugned order, I find that the Court
below has passed a speaking order considering all the facts by incorporating
the same in the impugned order and issued the processes under Section 82 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned order
dated 22.12.2020.
7. So far as pending anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
concerned, it is true that his anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by the
Court below on 22.06.2020. The petitioner had approached the High Court on
25.07.2020. It is an admitted fact that the said anticipatory bail application is
still pending and during pendency of the same, processes under Section 82 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure have been issued.
8. From the impugned order, I find that this fact of pendency of
anticipatory bail application before this Court was not within the knowledge of
the Court below nor the Court below was informed about the same. Since the
Court below was not within the knowledge of the pendency of the anticipatory
bail application before this Court and neither the Court was informed about the
same, it is well within the jurisdiction of the Court below to issue processes
under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. Thus, I find no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition. This
criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-03
