KRISHNA SANTHALIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 16.03.2012 and also orders dated 30.08.2012 and 11.12.2012, whereby and whereunder, processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr. P.C. were ordered to be issued against the petitioners respectively. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners, in a case registered under Sections 420 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code, were granted bail. However, when the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken and the matter was posted for framing of charge. Thereupon, an application for discharge was filed, which was rejected by the court below. Being aggrieved with that order, an application was filed before the revisional court, that application also got dismissed. As against that order, the petitioners preferred a Criminal Writ being W.P.(Cr.) No.39 of 2012 before this Court. While that application was pending , the petitioners did file a petition under Section 317 of the Cr. P.C, before the court below on the date fixed. On that application, an order was passed whereby bail bond of the petitioners was cancelled and the non - bailable warrant of arrest were ordered to be issued. Thereupon, the court, without having any report regarding execution of the warrant of arrest and subsequently, without having any report regarding execution of the warrant of arrest, passed order dated 30.08.2012 and 11.12.2012 for issuance of processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C., and as such, those orders never seem to have been passed in accordance with law and are fit to be set aside. So far prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by which warrant of arrest has been issued is concerned, that never appears to be illegal, as it appears from the order dated 15.02.2012 that a representation was filed, but the court directed the petitioners to appear physically on that next date i.e. 16.03.2012. On the next date, the petitioners instead of appearing physically, filed an application under Section 317 Cr. P.C., upon which an order was passed for cancellation of the bail bond and consequently, order was passed for issuance of non -bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners.

(3.) HOWEVER , so far order relating to issuance of processes under Sections 82 and 83 are concerned, it never seems to have been issued in accordance with law.