Mokhtar Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1196 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr. M.P. No. 25 of 2021
                                       ----

           Mokhtar Ansari                              ...     Petitioner
                                            -versus-
           The State of Jharkhand                      ...     Opposite Party
                                              ----

                CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                    THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
                                              ----

           For the Petitioner :   Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
           For the State:         Mr. Vishwanath Ray, A.P.P.
                                         ----
5/ 09.03.2021    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

appearing for the State through Video Conferencing. 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 complain with respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in Daltonganj (T) Police Station Case No. 184 of 2018 (G.R. No.1288 of 2018), by which processes under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that merely because the accused is not appearing before the police and is not cooperating with the investigation, processes under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued. He submits that the order impugned is absolutely non speaking and bad. The date and time when the petitioner has to appear in terms of the impugned order has also not been mentioned.

4. I have gone through the impugned order. There is no subjective satisfaction in the impugned order as to how the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is concealing himself or absconding so that warrant cannot be executed. Merely writing that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation or he is not appearing before the police is not a sufficient compliance of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, from the impugned order I find that no date and time has been mentioned as per the mandate of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that the petitioner can appear on that particular date. From perusal of Form IV of the Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued pursuant to the impugned order, I find that the important columns have been kept blank. The date when the petitioner has to appear has even been kept

blank. Thus, the Form IV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the impugned order have been filled/passed ignoring the mandatory provisions of law and ignoring the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Others versus State of Jharkhand as reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712, which was already circulated to all the judicial officers of the State. Inspite of such circulation, this type of orders are being passed by the judicial officers time and again.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, impugned order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in Daltonganj (T) Police Station Case No. 184 of 2018 (G.R. No.1288 of 2018) is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Others versus State of Jharkhand as reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.

6. The Registrar General is directed to place a copy of this order before Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03