Ranjeet Das @ Ranjeet Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3280 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 1676 of 2021
             1.   Ranjeet Das @ Ranjeet Kumar Das, aged about 22 years, S/o Hargauri
                  Das
             2.   Vimal Kumar Das @ Vimal Das, aged about 20 years, S/o Bablu Das,
                  both r/o Village Sonatar, P.O. & P.S. Chitra, Dist.- Deoghar
             3.   Pankaj Mahra @ Pankaj Das, aged about 22 years, S/o Subhash
                  Mahra, r/o Village Rangasisra, P.O. Pathrol, P.S. Pathrol, Dist.- Deoghar
                                                                       ... Petitioners
                                         -Versus-
                  The State of Jharkhand                               ... Opposite Party
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.

-----

03/06.09.2021. Heard Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the opposite

party-State.

This criminal miscellaneous 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 on merit.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.02.2021

passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koderma, whereby process under Section

82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners.

Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

without service report of bailable warrant/non-bailable warrant of arrest,

process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued, which is against the

mandate of law and, therefore, the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 is

bad in law.

On perusal of the impugned order dated 26.02.2021, it transpires that

in the said order, it has been stated that A.B.P. No.548 of 2019 filed by the

petitioners was rejected on 18.11.2019. Non-bailable warrants of arrest

were issued on the prayer of the I.O.. As per para nos. 32 and 34 of the up-

to date case diary, the police went to the house of the accused persons on

11.08.2020 and on 12.08.2020 and it was reported to the police by the

witnesses, who are residents of the same locality that the accused persons

are deliberately evading their arrest and absconding. The non-bailable

warrant of arrest issued against the accused persons has been returned by

the I.O. stating the same fact on the back of the warrant.

In that view of the matter, there is indication of date, time and place

of appearance in the impugned order dated 26.02.2021. There is sufficient

compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md.

Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand ,

reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.

In view of the aforesaid facts, no relief can be extended to the

petitioners. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands

dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/