Jharkhand High Court
Om Prakash Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1857 of 2020
------
1. Om Prakash Pandey, aged about 44 years Son of Late Someshwar
Pandey, Resident of - Near Zila School Baludih, Bishunpur,
Bishnupur P.O. B.Polytechnic & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist-Dhanbad,
Jharkhand.
2. Urerndar Pandey @ Urendra Pandey, aged about 46 years Son of
Late Someshwar Pandey, Resident of - Near Zila School Baludih,
Bishunpur, Bishnupur P.O. B.Polytechnic & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
3. Jitendra Kumar Ray @ Jitendra Kumar Pandey (written in
complaint petition as Jitendar Pandey), aged about 43 years Son
of Late Someshwar Pandey, Resident of - Near Zila School
Baludih, Bishunpur, Bishnupur P.O. B.Polytechnic & P.S.-
Dhanbad, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. Jitu Gope, aged about 47 years, Son of late Dipu Gope, resident of
Near Hari Mandir, Baludih, Bishnupur, P.O. B.Polytechnic & P.S.-
Dhanbad, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
5. Ajay Kumar Roy @ Ajay Kumar Rai, aged about 47 years, son of
Late Basudev Roy, resident of 15 A Bishnupur near Zila School,
Bishunpur P.O. B.Polytechnic & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist-Dhanbad,
Jharkhand.
6. Sushil Kumar Sinha @ Munna, aged about 68 years, Son of Sri
Ramchandra Prasad, Resident of Vill Kashiyatand P.O. Kalyanpur
and P.S. Barwadda, Dist Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, and
2. Dr. Krishna Singh, aged about 35 years, son of late Prameshwar
Singh, Resident of -Victory Colony P.O. Dhansar and P.S.-Jharia,
Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including
the FIR and order dated 10.06.2019 by which the warrant of arrest has been
issued against the petitioners in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No.390 of
2015 corresponding to GR Case No.5584 of 2015.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners do not press the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding and
confine their prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 10.06.2019 only.
Accordingly, the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding is rejected as
not pressed.
4. So far as the order dated 10.06.2019 passed in the said Jharia P.S. Case
No.390 of 2015 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that by the said order, the learned ACJM, Dhanbad has observed
that notice has already been issued to the accused persons, hence, it allowed
the prayer of the I.O. to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioners who are
the accused persons of this case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and
Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1
submits that in Para-56, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that
Court should properly balance both personal liberty and social interest before
issuing warrants.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relief upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand
Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 791
wherein in Para-12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that
Courts have to be extra cautious and careful while directing issuance of non-
bailable warrant of arrest else wrongful detention would amount to denial of
constitutional mandate envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that there is no material
in the record to suggest that the petitioners were evading their arrest and in the
absence of the same, the learned ACJM, Dhanbad had committed a grave
illegality by issuing the non-bailable warrant of arrest, hence, it is submitted
that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the
petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the petitioners were
deliberately evading their arrest, so the learned ACJM, Dhanbad has rightly
ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest against them on the prayer of the
Investigating Officer, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any
merit, be dismissed.
9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that Section 73 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia vests the power
upon the Magistrate of First Class to direct a warrant of arrest to any person
within his local jurisdiction for arrest inter alia of any person who is accused of
non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.
10. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the petitioners are accused of
committing non-bailable offences punishable under Sections 467 & 387 of
Indian Penal Code, but there is no satisfaction recorded by the learned ACJM,
Dhanbad that the petitioners are evading their arrest and in the absence of such
essential ingredients, certainly the learned ACJM, Dhanbad committed a grave
error by issuing the warrant of arrest against the petitioners by the order dated
10.06.2019 in the said Jharia P.S. Case No.390 of 2015. Accordingly, the same
being not in accordance with law, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
11. Accordingly, the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by learned ACJM,
Dhanbad in Jharia P.S. Case No.390 of 2015, is quashed and set aside.
12. The learned ACJM, Dhanbad may pass a fresh order in accordance with
law.
13. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed.
14. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide
order dated 02.11.2020, is vacated.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 12th of November, 2024
AFR/ Abhiraj
