Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand ....... Opp. ... on 3 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.83 of 2021
Pankaj Kumar Yadav ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....... Opp. Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, APP
-----------
rd
12/Dated:03 January, 2024
This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of
the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.10.2020 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII-cum-Special Judge, (FTC)
Crime against Women, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No.504/2018 by which
prayer for release of Motorcycle was rejected by the learned Court
below by observing that the charges has not been framed till date.
2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written
application submitted by one Sanjay Kumar Singh on 21.08.2018
that his younger brother Ranjit Kumar Singh was murdered near
Kusunda Railway Crossing giving rise to Kenduadih (Gonudih) P.S.
Case No.135/2018 instituted under Sections 302/120B/387/427/34
of the I.P.C and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Heard Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, learned APP for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned order passed by the learned court below is illegal and not
sustainable in the eye of law. The petitioner has been named on the
basis of confession of co-accused which is not admissible in law. It
is submitted that the petitioner is the bona fide owner of the seized
Motorcyle and is lying in deteriorating condition without
protection. It is submitted that the Motorcycle may be released in the
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002
(10) SCC 283 (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat). It is
further submitted that the charges has been framed against the
petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish the
security amount to the satisfaction of the learned Court below and
hence the impugned order may be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer. It is
submitted that though the petitioner has not been named in the FIR
but his complicity has been found. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has got two criminal antecedent and the prosecution case
been fully supported by the statements of several witnesses and the
case relates to murder of one Ranjit Kumar Singh.
6. Perused the records of this case and the impugned order passed
by the learned Court below.
7. It appears from the impugned order that the Court below has
rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the charges
has not been framed and as such this petition is being rejected at this
stage.
8. Under the Circumstances, the impugned order dated
16.10.2020 passed by the learned Court below is set aside in the
interest of justice and the case is remitted back to the learned Court
below to pass fresh speaking order in accordance with law and the
Court below will not be prejudiced by any observation made by this
Court.
9. Accordingly, Cr. Revision No.83 of 2021 is allowed and
stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
