Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 425 (JHR)

Nand Lal Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2013-04-02

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
Judgment Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner's name is the same which was there in the F.I.R. and in the charge-sheet, whereas, in the impugned order, the name has wrongly been recorded. 2. In view of the submission, defect No.9(iii) is hereby, ignored. 3. So far as defect No.9 (ii) is concerned, the same be removed in course of the day. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that the petitioners were made accused in a case registered as Adityapur P.S. Case No.111 of 2004 [G.R. No.374 of 2004] under sections 379, 411 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the matter was taken up for investigation and it took almost six years in submitting charge-sheet which was submitted on 31.01.2010. While the matter was under investigation, all the five petitioners were granted bail on 2.07.2004. On submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 379, 411/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners on 4.03.2010, on which date, summons were ordered to be issued against the petitioners. 6. It further appears that without there being any report relating to the service of summons, final warrant of arrest bailable was ordered to be issued vide order dated 17.09.2010 and then non-bailable warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued on 24.03.2011. In the same manner without having any report relating to the execution of the warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. was ordered to be issued on 14.05.2012 and secondly process under Section 83 of the Cr. P.C. was ordered to be issued vide order dated 5.12.2012. Thereupon without there being any service report, an order was passed on 18.12.2012, whereby, the petitioners were declared permanent absconder and the record was ordered to be consigned to the record room. 7. Thus, it is evidently clear that none of the aforesaid order was passed, in accordance with law and thereby, all the orders whereby warrant of arrest bailable, non-bailable, processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr. P.C. and also the order dated 18.12.2012 are hereby, set aside. 8. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. 9. 7. Thus, it is evidently clear that none of the aforesaid order was passed, in accordance with law and thereby, all the orders whereby warrant of arrest bailable, non-bailable, processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr. P.C. and also the order dated 18.12.2012 are hereby, set aside. 8. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. 9. The petitioners are directed to appear before the court below within two weeks from today, failing which, the court would be at liberty to take recourse available under the law for securing their appearances.