Jharkhand High Court
Jay Kant Pathak vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
2024:JHHC:45023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1598 of 2024
------
Jay Kant Pathak ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P.
------
Order No:-11 Dated:-13-11-2025
I.A. No.13045 of 2025
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed with a prayer for stay the operation of second
cognizance order dated 22.05.2025 passed in Complaint Case no.136 of
2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro during the pendency of this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Cr.M.P has
been filed to quash the order by which the second cognizance has been
taken by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro for committing the offences
punishable under Section 27(b)(ii), 28A, 22(3) and 27(d) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 which is not in accordance with law in view of the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balveer Singh
and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2016) 6
SCC 680. It is next submitted that the petitioner has received summons of
this case, but he has not appeared before the trial Court nor he has filed
any prayer for anticipatory bail and consequent upon non-appearance of
the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, non-bailable
warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, hence, it is
submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this interlocutory application,
be allowed.
Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the state submits that it is a settled
principle of law that the criminal miscellaneous petition invoking the
jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has not a substitute for
2024:JHHC:45023
anticipatory bail and keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner in not
responding to the summons issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro
and not appearing before the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, hence, the
prayer as prayed for in this interlocutory application ought not be
allowed.
Having heard the submission made at the bar and considering the
fact that the petitioner is not a law abiding person as he has not appeared
before the learned trial Court even, though, he has received the summons
from the court concerned nor there is any material in the record to
suggest that the petitioner has filed any anticipatory bail as yet, therefore,
this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for stay the operation of
second cognizance order dated 22.05.2025 passed in Complaint Case
no.136 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro.
Accordingly, this interlocutory application, being without any
merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Learned counsel for the State prays for time.
Prayer for time is allowed as the last chance.
List this case after eight weeks.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
13/11/2025
Abhiraj/
