Tunni Devi @ Tunni Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1017 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No. 62 of 2021

                 Tunni Devi @ Tunni Devi                                  ... Petitioner(s).
                                                 -Versus-
                 The State of Jharkhand                                ... Opp. Party(s).
                                          ------

           CORAM        :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                              Through: Video Conferencing
                                                 ------

           For the Petitioner(s)   : Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate.
           For the State           : A.P.P.
                                         .........
04/01.03.2021:          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 complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. Heard the counsel for the parties.

3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 11.1.2018, 8.3.2018, 26.4.2018 and 18.1.2019 whereby, the court below has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest, process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C and thereafter the petitioner has been declared as permanent absconder.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment/order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand), submits that the orders impugned has been passed without application of mind. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed without following the provisions of law and mandate of Section 73 Cr.P.C. He further submits that what are the materials against the petitioner, which suggest that the petitioner was evading his arrest, has also not been mentioned in the order impugned.

5. From perusal of order impugned, it appears that the court below has not recorded subjective satisfaction in the orders impugned, which is necessary for issuing the process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. In most mechanical way and without application of mind as well as without recording the subjective satisfaction, the process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.,P.C have been issued against the petitioner. This type of order, which is non-speaking and reflects non- application of mind cannot be allowed to sustain in the eye of law. This Court has dealt with the issue in detail in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand) and held that while issuing the process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C, the court has to apply his mind and the procedure and requirements, which have been laid down in the section should be strictly followed. The court below has not recorded any subjective satisfaction, which makes the orders impugned bad in law.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that orders impugned are not in consonance with the provision of law as well as judgment passed by this Court. Thus, orders impugned dated 11.1.2018, 8.3.2018, 26.4.2018 and 18.1.2019 whereby, the court below has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest, process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C and thereafter the petitioner has been declared as permanent absconder, respectively are, hereby, quashed and set aside.

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

8. The learned court below is directed to pass order afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.

Anu/C.P.-3                                                (ANANDA SEN, J.)