Binod Paswan @ Binod Kumar Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 980 Jhar

                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(Cr.) No. 308 of 2018

Binod Paswan @ Binod Kumar Paswan                    ......     Petitioner
                        Versus

The State of Jharkhand                        ......     Respondent
                           ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---------

For the Petitioner       : Mr. Radhy Shyam, Advocate
                           Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondent-State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II .............

06/Dated: 10/03/2022 Heard Mr. Radhy Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sachin

Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed for commanding upon the learned court

below to insert the name of the petitioner as the learned court below has acquitted

both the accused persons but in the judgement dated 15.09.2016, the name of the

petitioner has been left out in connection with G.R. No. 871 of 2021 arising out of

Bermo P.S. Case No. 133 of 2010 (T.R. No. 520 of 2016).

Mr. Radhy Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

although in the judgement finding has been given in favour of the petitioner but the

name of the petitioner has not been included. He submits that inadvertently the trial

court has not disclosed the name of the petitioner in last paragraph of the

judgement.

Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State draws the

attention of the Court to order dated 15.09.2016 wherein it has been recorded that

accused Pradeep Paswan was present. The name of Binod Paswan @ Binod Kumar

Paswan has not been disclosed in that order. The order does not suggest that the

petitioner was represented by the lawyer before the Court on that day.

On perusal of para 3 of the judgment dated 15.09.2016, it transpires

that the case of the accused Binod Paswan was split up on 03.07.2015 on account of

his prolonged continuous non appearance in this case that is the reason the name of

the petitioner was not inserted in the acquittal judgment. There is no substance in the

prayer made in writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

It is open to the petitioner to appear in the concerned court and any

petition filed by the petitioner shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with

law and if there is no impediment of the record of the case of the petitoner, the said

petition shall be disposed of on the same day.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/