Kumari Purvi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3665 Jhar

                                                       1                   Cr.M.P. No. 688 of 2022


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No. 688 of 2022
             1. Kumari Purvi, age 26 years old, daughter of Sunil Kumar Rai, resident
                of Flat No.A-207, C.P. Singh Enclave, Bartand, P.O. & P.S. Bankmore,
                District- Dhanbad
             2. Mohit Tiwari @ Mohit Tiwary, age 29 years old, son of Sanjay Kumar,
                resident of 106A, Tetultalla, Purana Bazar, Pani Tanki, P.O. & P.S.
                Bankmore, District- Dhanbad                       ... Petitioners
                                        -Versus-
                The State of Jharkhand                            ... Opposite Party
                                              -----

             CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                               -----
             For the Petitioners               : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
             For the Opposite Party-State      : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
                                               -----

05/13.09.2022. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.01.2022

whereby process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued

against the petitioners in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No.243/2020,

corresponding to G.R. No.340/2021, pending in the court of the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. Subsequently the order dated

15.12.2021, by which warrant of arrest has been issued against the

petitioner, was also challenged by way of filing I.A. No.3932 of 2022, which

was allowed vide order dated 06.06.2022.

3. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are charge-sheeted under the sections of bailable in nature

and they are not charge-sheeted against the sections of non-bailable in

nature. He further submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Dhanbad has refused to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioners vide

order dated 21.01.2021. He further submits that the main accused is Badal

Gautam and he has faced the trial and he has already been acquitted by the

learned court. He also submits that the petitioners were not evading the

arrest and they have already taken steps in view of remedy available under

the Cr.P.C. The anticipatory bail applications have been rejected by the

learned Sessions Judge as well as by this Court and, thereafter the

petitioners have moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for getting

anticipatory bail in S.L.P. (Cr.) Nos.00534 of 2022 and 000690 of 2022,

which are pending. He further submits that when the offences are non-

bailable in nature, there is no question of issuance of warrant and liberty of

the petitioners has been taken that too when the order of the anticipatory

bail applications are being examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that the

petitioners not cooperating and that is why the learned court has passed

the impugned orders. She further submits that the impugned order dated

31.01.2022 is a well reasoned order, whereby, process under Section 82

Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioners.

5. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the materials on the

record and finds that vide order dated 21.01.2021, the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dhanbad has been pleased to reject the prayer for issuance of

warrant of arrest. In that order, he has also observed that the petitioners

are charge-sheeted under the sections of bailable in nature and they are not

charge-sheeted against the sections of non-bailable in nature. The main

accused Badal Gautam has also faced the trial and he has already been

acquitted. In such a case when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Dhanbad has rejected the prayer of the I.O. to issue warrant of arrest

against the petitioners vide order dated 21.01.2021 and even assuming that

the petitioners were not cooperating with the trial with the investigating

agency, at the first instance warrant of arrest was required to be issued

whereas straightway non-bailable warrant has been issued by the learned

court, which is against the mandate of law. The issuance of non-bailable

warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and

imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual

and in that view of the matter, the learned court is required to take care

before issuing non-bailable warrant as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & another v. State of Uttaranchal

& others, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1. The criteria of issuance of non-

bailable warrants has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

paragraph 53 of the said judgment. It is well settled that there cannot be

any straight jacket formula for issuance of warrant of arrest in general

unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a

heinous crime and if it is cleared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the

evidence. In that situation only, the issuance of non-bailable warrants are

required to be issued. In the case in hand, the petitioners have already

availed remedy described under the Cr.P.C. by way of filing anticipatory bail

applications, which were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge as well as

by this Court and the said orders are being tested before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) Nos.00534 of 2022 and 000690 of 2022. The

main accused has already been acquitted, who was charge-sheeted against

non-bailable sections and by the impugned order dated 15.12.2021, the

learned court has not considered the observations made by his predecessor

in the order dated 21.01.2021 and only on the application of the I.O., the

impugned order has been passed. This is not a case that the petitioners are

evading their arrest and not cooperating, although the petitioners have

already taken recourse under the Cr.P.C.

6. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the orders dated

15.12.2021 and 31.01.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Dhanbad in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No.243/2020,

corresponding to G.R. No.340/2021, pending in the court of the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad are, hereby, quashed. The matter is

remitted back to the learned concerned court to proceed afresh, in

accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/