Jharkhand High Court
Narendra Kumar Choubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 2959 of 2021
----
Narendra Kumar Choubey, aged about 54 years, son of late Naresh Mohan
Choubey, resident of Village-Saketpuri, PO and PS Godda Nagar, District
Godda, Jharkhand ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Sanjiv Kumar Jha, aged about 47 years, son of late Vishnu Kant Jha,
resident of Village Dhamsaiyan, PO and PS Chapri, District -Godda
...... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate
----
7/21.09.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
18.01.2021 whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued
against the petitioner in connection Godda (T) P.S.Case No.81 of 2019,
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda.
Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the case is registered under sections 406,
420, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. He submits that the F.I.R is received at the
learned court on 4.4.2019 and by the next order dated 18.1.2021 on the
application of the Investigating Officer straightway non-bailable warrant
has been issued which is not in accordance with law.
Mr. Devesh Krishnar, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent State submits that cognizable and non-bailable sections are
there and that is why the Investigating Officer has prayed for issuance of
non-bailable warrant and the learned court has passed that order.
In view of the above facts and the submissions of the
learned courts appearing for the parties, it appears that the case is
arising out of under the sections of the I.P.C and the F.I.R was received
by the learned court on 4.4.2019 and straightway on the application of
the Investigating Officer the order dated 18.1.2021 has been issued
whereby non-bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner.
There is no need of filing such petition and obtaining order from the
learned court and the police is having power under the Cr.P.C and there
was no occasion to file such petition before the learned court. The
criteria of issuing non-bailable warrant has been considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami v. The
State of Uttaranchal, 2007 (12) SCC 1, wherein at paragraph-53,
it is held as under:
"53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court
when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired
result. This could be when:
• it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in
court; or
• the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a
summon; or
• it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into
custody immediately."
In the said judgment, it has also been considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that personal liberty of any person cannot be
deprived, except in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law
which has been considered at paragraph no.50 of the said judgment. The
court is required to maintain proper balance while issuing non-bailable
warrant. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that no notice under section 41A Cr.P.C has been received by the
petitioner and the petitioner is not evading the investigation, however,
that order is effective in its way. The impugned order dated 18.01.2021
whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the
petitioner in connection Godda (T) P.S.Case No.81 of 2019, pending in
the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda is set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the learned concerned court
to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Cr.M.P. No.2959 of 2021 stands disposed of.
Interim order stands vacated.
I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
