Jharkhand High Court
Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 235 of 2021
------
Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Sahu
... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... .... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate
05/29.06.2021 So far as defect no. 9(iii) is concerned, certified copy has
already been filed which is on record.
Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to
remove the defect nos. 9( (ii), 9 (iv) and 9 (v) within six weeks.
If the defects are not removed within the aforesaid period, office is
directed to the list this matter before appropriate Bench.
Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.
Nehala Sharmin, 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 orders dated
18.12.2017 and 14.02.2018 passed in Mandu (Kuju) P.S. Case No. 91 of
2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1371 of 2011 whereby non-bailable
warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner and further process
of 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner, pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate at Ramgarh.
Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
vide order dated 18.12.2017 non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued
against the petitioner and by order dated 14.02.2018 process under section
83 Cr.P.C. has been issued without following the due procedures of law.
She submits that order dated 14.02.2018 is a cryptic order without
satisfaction and following the parameter with regard to that section, the
same has been passed.
Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that
petitioner inspite of sufficient opportunity provided to him, not appeared in
the court below and the Court below has rightly issued the impugned orders.
She submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders.
On perusal of impugned order dated 14.02.2018, it appears that
parameters of judgement passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustam
Alam @ Rustam & Ors. V. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020
(2) JLJR 712 and section 83 Cr.P.C has not been followed.
Annexure-3 series suggests that the petitioner was suffering from
cervical spondylosis and severe depression, for which medical prescriptions
have been brought on record.
In view of medical report and considering that the parameters of
section 83 Cr.P.C. and the judgment of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam
(supra) has not been followed and as it has been submitted at bar by Mrs.
Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner will appear before
the Court below on or before 06.07. 2021, it will be suffice for the interest
of justice that this criminal miscellaneous petition be disposed of directing
the petitioner to appear before the Court below on or before 06.07.2021.
If the petitioner appears on or before 06.07.2021, the orders dated
18.12.2017 and 14.02.2018 shall not be given effect and on the same bail
bond the petitioner will be allowed for privilege of bail.
It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear on or before
06.07.2021, the Court below shall take all coercive steps against the
petitioner.
With the above observation, this criminal miscellaneous petition
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
