Jharkhand High Court
Mritunjay Kumar @ Dablu Mishra @ Dabloo ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:17102)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1433 of 2025
Mritunjay Kumar @ Dablu Mishra @ Dabloo Mishra @ Mritunjay Giri,
aged about 56 years, son of late Rampreet Giri, resident of
Koriribandh, Jharia, P.O. & P.S.-Jharia, Dist.-Dhanbad
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
: Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer for quashing the portion of
the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Saraidhela P.S.
Case No.48 of 2017 involving the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 307 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and under
Section 27 of Arms Act; by which in a common order inter alia the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad has rejected a
petition to call for the loan sanction letter from the Bank Manager
of Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd. Dalsingh Sarni Branch,
Samastipur (Bihar).
(2025:JHHC:17102)
3. The undisputed fact remains that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 17990 of 2024, vide order dated 14.02.2025
has directed the trial court, being the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XVI, Dhanbad, to conclude the trial within six months,
from that date.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner that S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 17990 of 2024 has wrongly been
mentioned as S.A. (Cr.) No. 17990 of 2024 in the last page of the
order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XVI, Dhanbad.
5. The petitioner who is accused person of the said case, has taken
the plea of alibi that at the time of occurrence, he was in
Samastipur which is at a distance of 350 km and the document
sought to be called for will establish his alibi hence, the petition
was filed for calling of the said record.
6. The learned trial court considered that the petitioner has not
filed any copy of any document to justify that there is any material
which can aid the petitioner in his plea of alibi. The learned trial
court also considered that the petition was filed in a vague
manner without any supporting documents or pen drive or video
recording showing his presence at Samastipur, on the date and
time of occurrence. The trial court also observed that the petition
has been filed without any merit as delaying tactics to linger the
trial of the case and rejected the petition.
(2025:JHHC:17102)
7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of AnokhiLal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
(2019) 20 SCC 196, paragraph nos. 25 and 26 of which reads as
under:-
"25. In V.K. Sasikala v. State [V.K. Sasikala v. State,
(2012) 9 SCC 771 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1010] a caution
was expressed by this Court as under : (SCC p. 790, para
23.4)
"23.4. While the anxiety to bring the
trial to its earliest conclusion has to be shared it
is fundamental that in the process none of the
well-entrenched principles of law that have
been laboriously built by illuminating judicial
precedents are sacrificed or compromised. In no
circumstance, can the cause of justice be made
to suffer, though, undoubtedly, it is highly
desirable that the finality of any trial is
achieved in the quickest possible time."
26. Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in
criminal matters and that would naturally be part of
guarantee of fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite
the process should not be at the expense of the basic
elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on
which postulates, the entire criminal administration of
justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal,
the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be
sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and
keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core
idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast
tracking of process must never ever result in burying the
cause of justice."
and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
reiterated the settled principle of law that under no circumstances
can the cause of justice be made to suffer, though, undoubtedly, it
is highly desirable that the finality of any trial is achieved in the
quickest possible time.
(2025:JHHC:17102)
8. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI,
Dhanbad, has hurriedly, in his over anxiety to conclude the trial
within the time stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
not allowed the petition of the petitioner to call for the records of
Utkrash Small Finance Bank Ltd., Samastipur (Bihar). It is also
submitted that because of the rejection of the said petition filed by
the petitioner, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to
establish his alibi. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in
this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal
miscellaneous petition and submits that the undisputed fact
remains that the petitioner has not taken any specific plea that the
document sought to be called for will go to show his presence at
Samastipur. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the
sanction letter of the loan, with the Bank Manager sought to be
called for by the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination can show
the presence of the petitioner in Samstipur; because the borrower
of a bank has no role in sanction of any loan granted in his favour.
It is then submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that this is not a case,
where even though the petition of the petitioner was having
merit, the same was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-XVI, Dhanbad, in his over anxiety to conclude the trial at
the earliest in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
(2025:JHHC:17102)
Court of India rather it is a case where the petition being without
any merit has been dismissed and additionally, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad, finding it relevant, has
mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also
directed to conclude the trial within the specified time, as already
indicated above. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the
considered view that the sanction letter of a loan, sanctioned in
favour of the petitioner, retained by a bank, can in no way show
that the person in whose favour the bank loan was sanctioned was
present at any particular place, on any particular time, because as
has rightly been submitted at the Bar, that a borrower of a loan
has no role in sanction of a loan.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that it being a settled principle of law that a trial court can curtail
the list of witnesses sought to be examined by the accused in his
defence or even refuse to examine any particular witness or call
for any document unless the same are relevant to the facts of the
case and as considering the fact that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad being satisfied that the document
sought to be called for being the sanction letter of a loan with a
bank manager is unnecessary and uncalled for and the same will
not help him in establishing the plea of alibi of the petitioner,
(2025:JHHC:17102)
rejected the same, this Court is of the considered view that there is
no justifiable reason to interfere with the order dated 23.05.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in
connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No.48 of 2017.
12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 30th June, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
