Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Prasad @ Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 978 of 2021
1. Sanjay Kumar Prasad @ Sanjay Kumar, about 50 years, S/o late
Niranjan Prasad, R/o 13 Bye lane, Opposite Petrol Pump, Kanke Road,
P.O. Kanke, P.S. Kanke, Dist.- Ranchi
2. Bijay Kumar Yadav, aged about 47 years, S/o Basudev Yadav, R/o
College Road, Old C.O. Office More, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, Dist.-
Deoghar ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Ms. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P.
-----
04/07.07.2021. Heard Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State.
This criminal miscellaneous 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
this matter has been heard.
The petitioners have preferred this criminal miscellaneous petition for
quashing the order dated 08.08.2018 by which bailable warrant of arrest
has been issued, order dated 28.11.2018 by which non-bailable warrant of
arrest has been issued and the order dated 06.03.2019 by which process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the order dated
19.04.2018, it has been recorded that summon has not been served upon
the petitioners and straightway vide order dated 08.08.2018, bailable
warrant of arrest has been issued and vide order dated 28.11.2018, non-
bailable warrant of arrest has been issued and vide order dated 06.03.2019,
process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. He further submits that
the impugned orders are cryptic in nature.
Ms. Ruby Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State tries to justify
the impugned orders and submits that the orders have been passed in
consonance with the provision of the Cr.P.C.
On perusal of the order dated 19.04.2018, it is clear that service of
summon was not there and all of a sudden on 08.08.2018, bailable warrant
of arrest has been issued and on 28.11.2018, non-bailable warrant of arrest
has been issued. The record suggests that the service report of the bailable
warrant is also not on the record and straightway non-bailable warrant of
arrest has been issued and vide order dated 06.03.2019, process under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued without any subjective satisfaction, which
is condition precedent under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Moreover, it is not in
consonance with the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Md.
Rustum Alam @ Rustam v. State of Jharkhand , reported in 2020 (2)
JLJR 712. The impugned orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 08.08.2018, 28.11.2018 and
06.03.2019 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. at Madhupur in connection with
P.C.R. Case No. 456/2014 are quashed.
Consequently, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
