Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Mehta @ Manoj Kumar Mehta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:12913)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 672 of 2025
Manoj Mehta @ Manoj Kumar Mehta, aged about 42 years, S/o Late
Biraini Mehta, R/o Village -Soba, P.O. -Imannagar, Bariwa, P.S. -
Haidernagar & District -Palamau .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bhirgunandan Mehta, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Nathuni
Mehta, R/o Village Soba, P.O. -Imannagar, Bariwa, P.S. -
Haidernagar & District -Palamau.
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate
.....
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash
and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 10.07.2024, passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau
in G.R. Case No. 551 of 2024 arising out of Haidarnagar P.S. Case
No. 90 of 2020.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the said Haidarnagar P.S.
Case No. 90 of 2020 has been registered involving the offences
(2025:JHHC:12913)
punishable under Section 147/148/149/325/307 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act inter-alia against
the petitioner. The place of occurrence is in village -Shoba under
Haidarnagar Police Station in the district of Palamau (Jharkhand).
The anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2021 in A.B.A.
No. 7250 of 2020. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 2215 of
2022 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal ) No. 6637 of
2021 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging the said
order by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner
was rejected. The petitioner took the plea before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India that he was under transfer order and has
already been transferred to New Delhi on duty with Central
Reserve Police Force and thus on the date of occurrence he was
not present at the place of occurrence. In the said Criminal Appeal
No. 2215 of 2022, though the I.O. of the case was expected to
verify the genuineness of the plea taken by the petitioner before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said appeal but by date
of final order passed in the said Criminal Appeal No. 2215 of 2022
dated 07.12.2022, the I.O. did not verify the same; leading the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to observe that the investigation
is made in a shoddy manner. Subsequently, it transpired from the
charge sheet submitted by the police against the co-accused
persons that police verified the said plea of the petitioner and it
was found out that the petitioner was at Delhi with his Central
Reserve Police Force Batallion from 17.03.2020 to 16.06.2020. So his
(2025:JHHC:12913)
presence at the place of occurrence on the alleged date of
occurrence i.e. 14.06.2020 between 09:00 A.M. to 04:00 P.M. is
ruled out. As the petitioner was not present at the place of
occurrence at the time of occurrence, police did not send him up
for trial, because of lack of evidence against him for having
committed the offence. The learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class
in the impugned order took note of the fact that police has not
sent up the petitioner for trial because of lack of evidence against
him but observed that there is no cogent ground mentioned in the
case diary that the petitioner was present elsewhere on the date
and time of occurrence and went on to hold that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding inter-alia against the petitioner also for
having committed the offences punishable under Section
147/148/325/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for
issue of summons to the petitioner also.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner was at Delhi with
the Central Reserve Police Force Batallion from 17.03.2020 to
16.06.2020. The same was found out after the I.O. of the case
verified the plea of the petitioner taken before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India; after observation made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 2215 of 2022. So
the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by
observing that there is no cogent ground mentioned in the case
diary that the petitioner was present elsewhere on the date and
time of occurrence though not only the same has been mentioned
(2025:JHHC:12913)
in the case diary but also the same has been mentioned in the
charge sheet itself, which was submitted against the co-accused
persons dated 23.02.2024 and by which the petitioner was not sent
up for trial. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider that
this is a frivolous case against the petitioner which has been filed
for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. It is next submitted that
the witnesses namely Nagendra Yadav and Pankaj Kumar
Kushwaha in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
have specifically stated that the petitioner was not present at the
place of occurrence and he was in his official duty, as has been
mentioned in para -186 & 187 of the case diary and similar
statement has also been made by the witnesses namely Pawan
Kumar Kushwaha and Gyan Ranjan Kumar Mahto; which is
evident from para -194 of 195 of the case diary and this fact has
been admitted by the independent witnesses of the case.
5. In support of her case, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, reported in AIR 2015 SC 923, para -47 of which
reads as under:-
"47 However, the words "sufficient grounds for
proceeding" appearing in the Section are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an
opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that
there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused
and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order
itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given
therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima
facie case against accused, though the order need not contain
(2025:JHHC:12913)
detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad-in-law if
the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect."
and submits that the impugned order is in teeth of the said
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hence, it is
submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this
criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
6. The Learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 opposes the prayer as prayed for by the
petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition.
7. 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 the undisputed fact remains
that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at
village -Shoba on the date of occurrence i.e. on 14.06.2020 and he
was present with his Central Reserve Police Force Battalion at
Delhi and thereafter in Sambalpur in the State of Odisha on the
way to going to Bhubaneswar in the State of Odisha. The
undisputed fact remains that this fact has also been supported by
the witnesses whose statement has been recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. as has been mentioned from para -186, 187, 194 & 195
of the case diary.
8. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Palamau at
Daltonganj, has committed a grave illegality by observing that
there is no cogent ground mentioned in the case diary that the
petitioner was present elsewhere on the date and time of the
(2025:JHHC:12913)
occurrence. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.07.2024,
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Daltonganj,
Palamau in G.R. Case No. 551 of 2024 arising out of Haidarnagar
P.S. Case No. 90 of 2020 so far as it relates to the learned
Magistrate forming an opinion that sufficient ground for
proceeding inter-alia against the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Section 147/148/325/307/149 of the Indian
Penal Code, is not sustainable in law and continuation of the same
will amount to abuse of process of law.
9. Accordingly the impugned order dated 10.07.2024, passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau
in G.R. Case No. 551 of 2024 arising out of Haidarnagar P.S. Case
No. 90 of 2020 so far as it relates to the learned Magistrate forming
an opinion that sufficient ground for proceeding inter-alia against
the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section
147/148/325/307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and
set aside qua the petitioner only.
10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 21st April, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
