Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1037 (JHR)

Vijay Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-05

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard the parties. 2. In this application, petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 2.5.2017 and 17.6.2017, passed in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 20 of 2017 by the learned S..D.J.M, Jamtara, whereby and where under non bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 respectively has been ordered to be issued. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is confining his argument only with respect to the order dated 17.6.2017. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not named in the FIR but subsequently when non bailable warrant of arrest was issued by order dated 2.5.2017, petitioner had preferred an application for anticipatory bail, which however was rejected as not maintainable since it was concluded that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and therefore there was no apprehension of arrest of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that prior to dismissal of anticipatory bail, non bailable warrant of arrest had already been issued against the petitioner and infact petitioner had already filed anticipatory bail application before this Court and only to frustrate the prayer of the petitioner, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been issued on 17.6.2017,which does not contain justifiable reason for issuance of the same. 5. Mr. Asif Khan, learned A.P.P., has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It appears that initially an anticipatory bail application was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara, which was rejected on 16.5.2017 as not maintainable since the petitioner was not named in the FIR. Order dated 2.5.2017 reveals that non bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the petitioner and therefore he had preferred anticipatory bail application but based on the arguments advanced by the learned A.P.P. stating therein that the said application is not maintainable, the same was rejected on 16.5.2017 as being not maintainable. Subsequently, on 17.6.2017, on requisition of the Investigating Officer, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been ordered to be issued. 7. Subsequently, on 17.6.2017, on requisition of the Investigating Officer, proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been ordered to be issued. 7. It appears from perusal of the order sheet that only to frustrate the petitioner availing his right in filing an anticipatory bail application, orders have been passed on requisition of the Investigating Officer for issuance of non bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under section 82 Cr P.C., 1973 Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer only with respect to the order dated 17.6.2017. It appears from perusal of the impugned order that certain reasons have been given by the learned Magistrate to the effect that petitioner was already aware of the fact apart from the fact that the petitioner is absconding. Merely because father of the petitioner is in judicial custody, that cannot be a reason for issuance of proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 as it was necessary to come to a finding that the petitioner was absconding or he is concealing himself. Impugned order dated 17.6.2017 has largely dealt with the father of the petitioner being in judicial custody and that a raid was conducted but the petitioner could not be apprehended. These grounds being feeble in nature, order dated 17.6.2017 cannot be sustained and accordingly while allowing this application, the impugned order dated 17.6.2017, passed in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 20 of 2017 by the learned S.D.J.M, Jamtara, whereby and where under proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been ordered to be issued, is hereby quashed and set aside. This application is allowed to the extent mentioned herein above. However, learned Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.