Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court:  Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of orders dated 09.06.2020 & 19.10.2020 whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under Section 82 CrPC 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.

Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Sunil Singh submits that without following the parameters as indicated under warrant of arrest and section 82 CrPC, non-bailable warrant of arrest, as well as a process under Section 82 CrPC, have been issued as there is no indication of time and place.

Counsel for the State Mr. Someshwar Roy submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and a non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under Section 82 CrPC have rightly been issued

The Court relied on judgment Md. Rustam Alam  v. State of Jharkhand, 2020 (2) JLJR 712 and observed that guidelines has not been followed and the parameters of warrant of arrest and Section 82 CrPC have not been complied as time and place has not been indicated.

The Court held “impugned orders dated 09.06.2020 & 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.” 

[Naveen Topno v. State of Jharkhand, Cr.M.P. No. 2671 of 2020, decided on 10-06-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J., disposed of a revision petition filed against the order of the lower court, whereby the respondent was granted bail in a case related to the offences under Sections 457, 497 and 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the lower court was justified in granting bail to the respondent.

One of the main contentions raised by the petitioner was that the respondent was a BSF officer i.e. he belonged to a disciplined and reputed force of this country and an offence of adultery committed by him on a woman, who was the school teacher, was an offence against the education system as well.

The Court observed that the offences under Sections 457 and 497 of the RPC are non-bailable. The lower court ought to have afforded an opportunity to the prosecuting agency to put forth objections before granting bail to the respondent, however the said opportunity was not given to the prosecuting agency and the respondent was granted bail as he himself surrendered before the court.

The Court held that the order passed by the lower court was not according to the law since it was passed without providing the prosecution an opportunity to place objections, as the offences for which the accused was charged were non-bailable offences. However, since a time of 6 years had already passed, the Court refused to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by the lower court.[Mohd. Ayub v. Sudesh Kumar, CRR No. 56 of 2012, order dated 30-10-2018]