Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeet Mandal @ Sanjeet Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 159 of 2021
------
Sanjeet Mandal @ Sanjeet Kumar Mandal, aged about 27 years, son
of Chiranjiv Mandal, resident of village-Dewalbari, P.O. Dewalbari, P.S.
Karmatand, District-Jamtara... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... .... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Karan Shahdeo, Advocate
04/22.03.2021 Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Karan Shahdeo, 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
25.11.2020 whereby process of 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the
petitioner in connection with Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2020, pending
in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih.
On the basis of written report of the informant namely, Kanchan
Kumari, aged about 15 years before the Officer-in-Charge, Ahilyapur Police
Station alleging therein that the petitioner was talking with through mobile.
On 10.03.2020 suddenly he came to the house of informant when her
mother was not present at house and her brother had gone out of the
house for duty. The petitioner tried to outrage her modesty. She saved
herself and raised alarm. For the said incident, a panchayati was held but
the petitioner refused the said decision and threatened the informant to kill
her brother. On the basis of these allegations, instant case was lodged.
Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
without following the due process of law, process under section 82 Cr.P.C.
has been issued against the petitioner. He submits that the case of the
petitioner is fully covered in the light of 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.
Mr. Karan Shahdeo, learned counsel for the State submits that
there is no illegality in the impugned order dated. 25.11.2020. He submits
that warrant of arrest has been issued on 19.09.2020 and thereafter several
steps were taken by the I.O. to serve the same but the petitioner was
evading the arrest and the learned Court below after applying the law laid
down in different judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
High Courts, passed the impugned order.
On perusal of impugned order dated 25.11.2020, it transpires that
S.I. has filed execution report dated 25.11.2020 stating therein that he
conducted raid in the house of petitioner for arrest on 20.09.2020,
05.10.2020 and 28.10.2020 in presence of local witnesses. The name of the
witnesses has been disclosed in the impugned order. In the execution report
of warrant of arrest signature on the back side is there. The prayer was
made for issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.
The learned Special Judge, POCSO Act has considered the several
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the order of this Court in
Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam (supra).
The petitioner is accused of non-bailable offence and he was evading
the arrest. There were materials before the Court below to come to the
conclusion for issuing process under section 82 Cr.P.C. There is sufficient
reasons to believe that the petitioner has absconded or concealing himself
so that warrant of arrest can not be executed. The Court below has given
reason and also considered the judgment in the case of Md. Rustam Alam
@ Rustam (supra) and issued process under section 82 Cr.P.C. The
impugned order is speaking order taking into consideration the judgment in
the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam (supra) and the guidelines has
been followed by the Court below. Accordingly, no relief can be extended to
the petitioner, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
