IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 44 of 2025 ------ Shambhu Bansfore @ Shambhu Basfor, aged about 44 years, S/o Rajender Basfor, R/o Q. No. RM 4-293, Ranga Mtiya, PO & PS: Sindri, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate; Mr. Subhneet Jha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P ------ Order No.03/Dated: 13.02.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing and setting-aside the order dated 02.08.2008 passed in ST No. 315 of 2008 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC- VIth, Dhanbad wherein the learned trial Court has issued the process under sections 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in connection with Baliapur PS Case No. 13 of 2004 lodged for the offence under sections 323,324,341,307 and 448 IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, record of GR No. 332 of 2004, arising out of Baliapur PS Case No. 13 of 2004, under sections 448, 341, 323,324 and 307 IPC was received in the Court of Sessions after commitment which was registered as S.T. No. 315 of 2018 and on the same day i.e. 02.08.2008 without issuing any summons for appearance of the accused/petitioner, the learned trial Court has passed an order that “……sole accused is absent. Issue fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest and process against accused fixing 22.8.2008 for appearance …..”. Accordingly, processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. along with non-bailable warrant of arrest have been issued simultaneously against the accused-petitioner. The aforesaid order is absolutely illegal and not warranted under law and cannot be justified in any corner. 4. The learned trial court has fragrantly ignored the relevant provisions of law and had passed a whimsical order without having any regard to law and procedure, therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set-aside. 5. The learned APP has opposed the aforesaid submissions and defended the impugned order. 6. It appears that it was the first date after commitment of the case before the Court of Sessions and on the very date of registration of the case i.e. ST No. 315 of 2008 the learned trial court without issuing summons to the petitioner has exhausted all the processes although the petitioner was all along on bail during investigation and submission of charge-sheet. 7. The aforesaid order is apparently against the mandate of law, therefore, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed at the stage of admissions itself and impugned order dated 02.08.2008 passed in ST No. 315 of 2008 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-VIth, Dhanbad is hereby set-aside. KNR/ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)