2025:JHHC:32462 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.1261 of 2025 Ratish Kumar Jha @ Ritesh Kumar Jha, aged about 49 years, son of Late Visheshwar Jha, Resident of Pokhar Bhinda, P.O.-Pokhar Bhinda, P.S.- Sakatraipur, District-Darbhanga, State-Bihar … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through ACB, Vigilance … Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP ------ 4/29.10.2025 Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the ACB through V.C. 2. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka in connection with Vigilance Case No. 24 of 2003 arising out of Vigilance PS Case No.22 of 2003 registered under sections 409, 420, 468, 467, 471, 477A and 120B of the IPC and section 13(1) (D) (i) (ii) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act whereby learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka has been pleased to issue NBW against petitioner and others, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka. Prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by same court in connection with the same case, whereby the learned Court has been pleased to issue NBW against the petitioner and others, pending in the same learned Court. Prayer is also made for quashing of the order the dated 02.08.2018 passed by that court with same case number, whereby again the learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka has issued process under 2025:JHHC:32462 2 Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. Next prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 26.05.2023/23.06.2023 passed by the same Court in connection with same Vigilance Case No. 24 of 2003, whereby the learned Court has again issued fresh NBW against the petitioner and others, pending in the same Court. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 19.03.2004 passed in A.B.A No.184 of 2004 by a Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the charge sheet was submitted in that case on 12.07.2010, i.e., after lapse of seven years. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the jurisdiction to the Criminal Court at Dumka. He next contended that the petitioner was having no knowledge about the transfer of the said case to the Court at Dumka. However, the summons has been issued by that Court, but the said summons has not been received by the petitioner. Since there was no service report to that effect, thereafter repeatedly, fresh non-bailable warrants of arrest (NBWs) have been issued against the petitioner and the process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued. 4. He further submits that all those orders, which are impugned herein in this petition have been passed without following the due process of law. He next submits that the petitioner has not received any summons relating to bailable warrant of arrest and non-bailable warrant of arrest and in absence of complying the mandatory provisions, repeatedly Section 82 Cr.P.C. processes have been issued. He next submits that he has got instruction from the petitioner that he 2025:JHHC:32462 3 is ready to appear before the learned Court on any date fixed by this Court or on the next date fixed by the learned trial Court in the present case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the ACB through V.C. opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner has not appeared before the learned Court and in view of that the learned Court has passed the orders in view of that, there is no illegality in the impugned orders. 6. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after having gone through the impugned orders, it is found that entire order sheet have been annexed passed by the learned trial court and there is nowhere mention that summons have been received by the petitioner. It is also not disclosed in any of the orders that NBW has been executed and service report is also not there so far as NBW is concerned and the learned Court repeatedly issued 82 Cr.P.C. processes as well as NBWs. 7. This aspect of the matter is well settled in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indramohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1. 8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. As such, the impugned orders dated 30.11.2016, 19.04.2017, 02.08.2018, 26.05.2023/23.06.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka in connection with Vigilance Case No. 24 of 2003 arising out of Vigilance PS Case No.22 of 2003 are hereby set-aside. 10. This petition is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 2025:JHHC:32462 4 11. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Court on 17th November 2025 or on the next date fixed by the learned Court in the case in hand. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 29.10.2025 R.Kumar