Nasim Sai vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3984 Jhar

                                       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P.(Cr.) No. 836 of 2023

Nasim Sai                                         ...... Petitioner
                         Versus
                         ...............

The State of Jharkhand                                  ...... Opposite Party
                           ---------

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                     ---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, A.C. to L& C-1

2/Dated: 16/10/2023 The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated

31.08.2023 in connection with Panki P.S. Case No. 139 of 2020 whereby

process under section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner by

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed

the F.I.R. and lateron he has been implicated in the case. He submits that the

petitioner filed anticipatory bail petition which was dismissed thereafter the

petitioner filed A.B.A 5627 of 2023 and during the pendency of this A.B.A.,

impugned order dated 31.08.2023 has been passed and in view of that the

petitioner was compelled to withdraw the said A.B.A. vide order dated

03.10.2023. He submits that the petitioner was taking steps under the Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the

learned court has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in

the impugned order.

4. Looking into the impugned order, it appears that the learned

court has passed the reasons order and even there is compliance 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. Further, it

appears that the petitioner has already taken steps under the Cr.P.C. and has

filed A.B.P before the Sessions Judge which was rejected thereafter the

petitioner filed A.B.A. No. 5627 of 2023 in the meantime the impugned order

was passed on 31.08.2023 thereafter the petitioner withdrew the said A.B.A. by

order dated 03.10.2023. This is not the case that the petitioner was not taking

steps. The petitioner has already taken steps under the Cr.P.C..

5. In view of the above facts the impugned order dated 31.08.2023 is

set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned learned court to

proceed afresh in accordance with law.

6. This petition stands disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/