Jharkhand High Court
Anil Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 319 of 2021
------
Anil Singh ... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... .... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee,, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
05/24.07.2021 Surviving defects are ignored.
Heard Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State.
This 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 present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated
10.08.2020 and order dated 11.12.2020 whereby warrant of arrest and
proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued respectively against
the petitioner in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 3/2020 arising out of
Jogta P.S. Case No. 33/2020 pending in the Court of learned Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, Dhanbad.
Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued without
any satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge. He submits that order dated
10.08.2020 has been issued without any cogent reason. He submits that
there is no mention of service of execution report of the summons and
bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant. He submits that order dated
11.12.2020 is bad in law in view of the judgment passed by this Court in
the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam & Ors. V. The State of
Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712. He submits that requirement
of Cr.P.C. is not reflected in the impugned orders.
Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for State tried to justify the
impugned orders and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned
orders.
On perusal of impugned order dated 10.08.2020, it transpires that
only on the basis of F.I.R, warrant of arrest has been issued against the
petitioner. What happened in summons etc. has not been reflected in order
dated 10.08.2020. Further order dated 11.12.2020 is not in terms of the
guidelines of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam (supra) and the parameters
of Section 82 Cr.P.C. There is no reflection of execution report of summons,
bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant etc. The requirement of Form-IV
has not been reflected in order dated 11.12.2020.
In that view of the matter, impugned orders dated 10.08.2020 and
11.12.2020 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the court below to
proceed afresh in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustam Alam @
Rustam (supra), in accordance with law.
With the above observation and direction, this criminal
miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
