Blog

Impugned orders passed without following the proper procedure of law were set aside – Jharkhand high court

A criminal petition filed against the impugned orders where bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant twice, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant have been issued against the petitioner. the present application is filed on the ground that the passed orders were not issued in accordance with the law. The petition was heard and allowed by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI in the case of Vijay Mundu versus the state of Jharkhand (Cr.M.P. No. 3060 of 2021)

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the case is of a motor accident where the petitioner was also injured and the petitioner has obtained the bail from the court and after which they did not receive any notices about the impugned orders passed without a proper procedure and in a mechanical way. the counsel further submits that the impugned orders were passed without any execution report and despite the report, bailable warrant, twice non-bailable warrant, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant have been issued against the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

The court finds that the passed orders suggest that the service report of the issued summons has not been given and a bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner. the other order also suggests some default in it of not presenting the execution report and from the order passed it is undoubtedly clear that the orders were passed not in accordance with law and there is no satisfaction recorded in terms of the Cr.P.C. and statutory provisions have not been followed. The court relies on the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and others v. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712, and accordingly the impugned order passed in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.90 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.535 of 2014, was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the concerned court to issue an order in accordance with the law.

Click here to read the Judgment 

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma