Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 431 (JHR)

Naveen Topno v. State of Jharkhand

2021-06-10

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2021
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of orders dated 09.06.2020 and 19.10.2020 whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued against the petitioners in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 43/2020, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. Latehar. 4. Mr. Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without following the parameters as indicated under warrant of arrest and section 82 Cr.P.C. non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as process under section 82 Cr.P.C. have been issued as there is no indication of time and place. He submits that non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as process under section 82 Cr.P.C. have not been issued in compliance of judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam and Others vs. State of Jharkhand, 2020 (2) JLJR 712 . 5. Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned counsel for the State tried to justify the impugned orders and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. have rightly been issued. 6. On perusal of impugned orders dated 09.06.2020 and 19.10.2020, it transpires that guidelines of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam (supra) has not been followed and the parameters of warrant of arrest and Section 82 Cr.P.C. have not been complied as time and place has not been indicated. 7. In that view of the matter, impugned orders dated 09.06.2020 and 19.10.2020 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the court below to proceed afresh in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam (supra), in accordance with law. 8. With the above observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and disposed of.