Jharkhand High Court
Monu Shukla @ Prakash Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 225 of 2022
1. Monu Shukla @ Prakash Kumar Shukla
2. Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Mahto
...... Petitioners
Versus
...............
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B.N. Ojha, A.P.P.
2/Dated: 23/02/2022
Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.N.
Ojha, learned counsel for the State.
2. 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.
3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of orders dated
09.06.2017 and 11.06.2018 whereby bailable warrant of arrest and non-bailable
warrant of arrest respectively have been issued against the petitioners. Further
prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 29.08.2019 whereby
proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners in
connection with Gonda P.S. Case No. 85 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No.
3970 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
4. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
without satisfaction, non bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the
petitioners. He further submits that parameter of section 82 Cr.P.C. has not
been followed in passing order dated 29.08.2019 by which proclamation under
section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners.
5. Mr. B.N. Ojha, learned counsel for the State submits that there is
no illegality in the impugned orders.
6. The petitioners have earlier appeared in the Court below and
obtained bail. Only on one day i. e. 18.03.2017 they have not appeared and on
09.06.2017 bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioners and by
next order dated 11.6.2018 non bailable warrant of arrest has been directed to
be issued against the petitioners. There is no execution report of bailable and
non bailable warrant of arrest to the petitioners and only in one line vide order
dated 29.08.2019, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued
against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that
the petitioners will appear in the concerned court.
7. In view of the above facts and considering that on non-appearance
of the petitioners in one day, bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against
the petitioners. Although, earlier petitioners appeared before the concerned
Court. Without execution report of bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable
warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners. Order dated
29.08.2019 by which process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against
the petitioners is not in accordance with law and without following the mandate
of judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @
Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR
712.
8. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 09.06.2017, 11.06.2018 and
29.08.2019 passed in connection with Gonda P.S. Case No. 85 of 2016,
corresponding to G.R. No. 3970 of 2016, are hereby quashed.
9. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed
afresh in accordance with law.
10. In view of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the petitioners shall appear in the concerned court on or before 14.03.2022.
11. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not appear before the
concerned court on or before 14.03.2022, the concerned court shall take all
coercive measures against the petitioners.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal
miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
