Gautam Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1984 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No.513 of 2021
                                   ------

1. Gautam Kumar Singh

2. Puja Singh

3. Anil Kumar Singh .... .... .... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Uday Pandey .... .... .... Opposite Parties

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate

------

04/22.06.2021 Heard Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashish Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

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.

Pursuant to order dated 05.04.2021, notice was issued upon opposite party no.2 and learned counsel, Mr. Ashish Jha has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.

Mr. Ashish Jha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 by way of e-mailing the judgment dated 26.03.2021 passed in Cr.M.P. No.411 of 2020 submits that direction issued by this Court in Cr.M.P. No.411 of 2020 has not been disclosed and suppressing the fact, the petitioner has obtained the stay of further proceeding in Complaint Case No.2335 of 2018.

The copy of Cr.M.P. No.411 of 2020 has been e-mailed which has been taken on record.

Direction has been issued in the said Cr.M.P. whereby the bail granted to the opposite party nos.2 and 3 in connection with Complaint Case No.2335 of 2018 by the court of learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh in terms of the order dated 06.12.2019, passed in A.B.A. No. 8327 of 2019 passed by this Court is cancelled and the learned S.D.J.M., Hazaribagh was directed to take coercive steps for apprehension of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 (Petitioner nos.1 and 2 in this order) to be taken into custody for facing the trial. In view of suppressing this fact, this Court is taking it very seriously.

The order of stay has been passed in this case by order dated 05.04.2021 whereas Cr.M.P. No.411 of 2020 was disposed by order dated 26.03.2021. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to bring into the knowledge of this Court about the order passed in Cr.M.P. No.411 of 2020 while hearing was going on in the quashing application on 05.04.2021, which has not been done by the petitioners.

Accordingly, the stay granted in this case by order dated 05.04.2021, is hereby, vacated.

Let this order be communicated to the Court below forthwith. Post this matter after four weeks.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Anit