Bhola Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Represented Through ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1069 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bhola Singh vs State Of Jharkhand Represented Through ... on 22 July, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                               2025:JHHC:20551
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(Cr). No. 394 of 2025
                                 -----
1. Bhola Singh, S/o Late Jagdish Singh, Resident of Village - Tharih Dolampur,
P.O. & P.S. - Kunda, District - Deoghar, Jharkhand.
2. Ashwani Gautam @ Ashwani Kumar Gautam @ Ashwani Pandey, S/o Bhavesh
Kumar Pandey, Resident of Mohalla - Telwa Bazar, P.O. Telwa Bazar, P.S. -
Simultalla, District - Jamui, Bihar.
3. Manish Kumar @ Manish Singh, S/o Late Bishwanath Singh, Resident of
Village - Tharih Dolampur, P.O. & P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.
                                                        .... Petitioner(s).
                                       Versus

1. State of Jharkhand represented through Director General of Police, having its
office at Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
2. Director General of Police, having its office at Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, having its office at Collectoriate Building,
Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District - Deoghar, Jharkhand.
4. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sadar Deoghar, P.O. & Sadar Town, Deoghar,
District P.S. Jharkhand. Deoghar,
5. Officer-In-Charge, Deoghar Town Police Station, Deoghar, PO. Deoghar, P.S.
Sadar Town Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.
6. Praveen Kumar, Son of Ramcharan, Resident of Police Line Deoghar, P.O.
Kunda, P.S. - Deoghar Town, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.
                                                            ... Opp. Party(s).
                                         WITH
                              W.P.(Cr). No. 395 of 2025
1. Kundan Singh, S/o Late Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of Village - Saithna, P.O.
Saloniya, P.S. Halsi, District -Lakhisarai, Bihar.
2. Raj Nandan, S/o Braj Nandan Sharma, Resident of Muhalla - Purani Bazar,
Ward No. 05, P.O. & P.S. - Lakhisarai, District - Lakhisarai, Bihar.
                                                            .... Petitioner(s).
                                        Versus

1. State of Jharkhand represented through Director General of Police, having its
office at Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
2. Director General of Police, having its office at Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, having its office at Collectoriate Building,
Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District - Deoghar, Jharkhand.
4. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sadar Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Sadar Town, Deoghar,
District Jharkhand. Deoghar,
5. Officer-In-Charge, Deoghar Town Police Station, Deoghar, PO. Deoghar, P.S.
Sadar Town Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.
6. Anup Kumar, Son of Ramcharan, Resident of Police Line Deoghar, P.O. -
Kunda, P.S. - Deoghar Town, District Deoghar, Jharkhand.         ... Opp. Party(s).
                                       ------
              CORAM      :       SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Laxmi Murmu, AddI.P.P. : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C-IV .........

08/ 22.07.2025: The petitioners in these Criminal Writ Petitions have prayed for

quashing of the First Information Reports being Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 121 of 2024 and Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 122 of 2024, dated 19.02.2024, which are now pending in the Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar. Petitioners further pray to stay of criminal proceedings.

2. The case of prosecution in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 121 of 2024 is based on a report by Sub-Inspector Praveen Kumar stating that on the night of 18/19 February 2024, he went to a banquet hall in Deoghar to catch Dhillan Singh @ Brijnandan Singh, who had violated a district exile order by illegally entering Deoghar to attend a wedding. When the police entered the hall, Dhillan Singh's group resisted with weapons, used abusive language, and forcefully pushed the police out, helping Dhillan Singh to escape. Later, the police called the P.C.R. unit and during the search, they caught one person named Narayan Singh, who admitted of being involved and gave the names of others who attacked the police. On the same day Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 122 of 2024 was also filed based on a report by Sub-Inspector Anup Kumar stated that during the investigation, the police reviewed CCTV footage and found that the banquet hall owner-cum-manager, the hotel owner, and others, including knowingly helped or sheltered the exiled accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the case due to personal grudge. He further submits that more than one FIR has been lodged against the petitioners for the same offence which should not have been done as per the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. Learned counsel representing the state submits that the petitioners are involved in serious offences including obstruction of public servants, criminal conspiracy, sheltering an exile-accused, and use of firearms. There are ample evidence that the offence has been committed by the petitioners. Further there is CCTV footage also. He further submits that if the offence is made out, the FIR cannot be quashed.

5. There is a general rule that second FIR cannot be filed for same incident but there are some exceptions to it. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358 stated that second FIR can be registered if ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. Paragraphs 8.5 and 9 states that -

8.5. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 this Court held, in the following terms that when a new discovery is made, the second FIR would be maintainable. It was said as follows:

"67. The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature. If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged."

"9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR:

9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. 9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.

9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.

9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.

9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different."

6. In the light of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court when, I go through the both the F.I.Rs, I find that the grounds for lodging both FIRs are different. I find that the FIR lodged being Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 121/2024 is for obstructing the police from performing their duty and assisting an accused in evading arrest which includes physical resistance, use of force, and criminal conspiracy to help the absconding accused to evade the police. Whereas F.I.R. of Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 122/2024 is for Knowingly providing aid or shelter to an exiled person which includes aiding or harboring the offender either by providing accommodation. Thus, in my opinion there is a clear difference in the accusations in both the FIR. Thus, the lodging of the instant F.I.Rs. are justified.

7. Further from bare perusal of the FIRs, I find that cognizable offences is made out. When I go through the F.IR., I find that FIRs were filed after due verification, including on-spot investigation and CCTV footage review, clearly revealing the presence and involvement of several persons including the petitioners. Thus, prima facie the offences are made out, therefore both the FIRs cannot be quashed.

8. In view of the observations made above, I find no merit in both these criminal writ petitions. Accordingly, these criminal writ petitions are dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S./