Jharkhand High Court
Dharmendra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1249 of 2021
Dharmendra Kumar ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P.
------
06/ 25.10.2021 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for
quashing of the orders dated 04.10.2019 and 27.08.2020, whereby non-
bailable warrant of arrest and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner, in
connection with Bagdehari P.S. Case No. 27 of 2018, pending in the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
present case has been filed for withholding of the account of the petitioner
by the informant. He submits that there is no ingredient of the Sections
mentioned in the First Information Report. He further submits that the
petitioner has not received any summon and the bailable warrant and
directly on the application of the I.O., non-bailable warrant of arrest has
been issued against the petitioner and thereafter, process under Section 82
Cr.P.C. has also been issued.
4. Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State
tries to justify both the orders and submits that there is no illegality in
both the impugned orders.
5. On perusal of the entire ordersheet, it transpires that on
06.01.2019, 29.03.2019, 26.06.2019 and on 18.09.2019, the matter was
adjourned, awaiting the final form and on 04.10.2019, on the application
of the I.O., non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the
petitioner, which is against the mandate of law. In such types of cases, the
Court was required to follow the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court issued in the case of " Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar" reported
in (2014) 8 SCC 273. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-11, held as
follows:-
"11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that
police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily
and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually
and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have
observed above, we give the following directions:-
11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its
police officers not to automatically arrest when a case
under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy
themselves about the necessity for arrest under the
parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41
CrPC;
11.2. All police officers be provided with a check
list containing specified sub-clauses under Section
41(1)(b)(ii);
11.3. The police officer shall forward the check
list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials
which necessitated the arrest, while
forwarding/producing the accused before the
Magistrate for further detention;
11.4. The Magistrate while authorising
detention of the accused shall peruse the report
furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and
only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will
authorise detention;
11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be
forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the
date of the institution of the case with a copy to the
Magistrate which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons
to be recorded in writing;
11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section
41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks
from the date of institution of the case, which may be
extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district
for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.7. Failure to comply with the directions
aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers
concerned liable 5 for departmental action, they shall
also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to
be instituted before the High Court having territorial
jurisdiction.
11.8. Authorising detention without recording
reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate
concerned shall be liable for departmental action by
the appropriate High Court."
6. Thus, in such type of cases, the Court and I.O. are required to
follow the procedure, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Arnesh Kumar" (supra), which is not done in the present case.
7. Since the order dated 04.102.019, issuing the non-bailable
warrant of arrest against the petitioner is bad, the subsequent order will
not survive.
8. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 04.10.2019
and 27.08.2020, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the
petitioner, in connection with Bagdehari P.S. Case No. 27 of 2018,
pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, are
hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara to proceed afresh in terms of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of "Arnesh Kumar" (supra).
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal
miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
