Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21225 (JHR)

Indrajit Chakraborty v. State of Jharkhand

2026-02-09

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. I.A. No.17360 of 2025 Heard the parties. This Interlocutory Application has been filed with the prayer to delete the Opposite Party No.2 namely Kaushik Dutt of this criminal miscellaneous petition, who died in the month of October, 2024. Considering the aforesaid fact, the prayer is allowed. Registry is directed to delete the opposite party No.2 in the cause title of this Cr.M.P. and renumber the present opposite party No.3 as opposite party No.2 with red ink. Interlocutory Application is disposed of accordingly. Cr.M.P. No.3581 of 2023 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.213 of 2023 and also to quash the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.2314 of 2019 by which the learned trial court cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner who is the accused person of Complaint Case No.2314 of 2019 and directed to issue the non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the Complaint Case No.2314 of 2019 was registered on the basis of order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No.1068 of 2018 in which the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi allowed the petition filed against the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and sent a copy of order dated 02.05.2019 to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi with a direction to treat it as a complaint. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 341 of the Cr.P.C. before this court. The petitioner also filed an application in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 19.07.2019 praying to adjourn the case till Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.568 of 2019 is decided by this Court. The learned A.C.J.M., to whose court the case was apparently transferred: directed the petitioner to file the order of this Court in the said appeal but the petitioner did not file the said order. On 18.03.2023 in Complaint Case No.2314 of 2019, the lawyer of the petitioner filed a petition to represent him and to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner. On 18.03.2023 in Complaint Case No.2314 of 2019, the lawyer of the petitioner filed a petition to represent him and to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner. The learned A.C.J.M. mentioned that the petitioner was given last chance for providing status of the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.568 of 2019 but as the same was not produced the bail was cancelled and office was directed to issue the non-bailable warrant of arrest. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.213 of 2023 in the court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi upheld the order of cancellation of the bail of the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no direction for personal appearance of the petitioner on 18.03.2023. The prayer for representation of the petitioner by his lawyer by dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner was filed. No order was passed on the said application by the learned A.C.J.M. as the learned A.C.J.M. neither allowed the said petition nor rejected the said petition but went out on to cancel the bail of the petitioner; which is not in accordance with law. It is next submitted that the prayer made before the learned A.C.J.M/ C.J.M, Ranchi on 19.07.2019 was in terms of Section 343 (2) of the Cr.P.C. but no order was passed on that petition either. Hence, it is submitted that the learned A.C.J.M/ C.J.M, Ranchi committed a grave illegality by cancelling the bail of the petitioner and the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality in dismissing Criminal Revision No.213 of 2023 ignoring the illegality in the order impugned before it, hence, the said order passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.213 of 2023 is also bad in law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 4. Learned P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dolat Ram & Others Vs. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 4. Learned P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dolat Ram & Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 349 and submit that in para-4 of the said judgment it has been mentioned that interference or attempt to interfere with the course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner is a sufficient ground to cancel the bail granted to the accused and in this case the allegation made against the petitioner is not furnishing the information of status of the criminal appeal filed in this Court amounts to interference with the due course of administration of justice and an attempt to evade the due course of the justice and the case is lingering before the A.C.J.M/ C.J.M, Ranchi for a considerable period of time, hence, the learned A.C.J.M/ C.J.M, Ranchi was justified in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the power under Section 343 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is discretionary power of the court concerned and merely because the petition under Section 343 (2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed, that will not protect the bail granted to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that there being no illegality in the impugned order, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Hence, it is submitted that there being no illegality in the impugned order, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this Court vide judgment dated 01.04.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2499 of 2021 in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others enumerated the following grounds illustratively though not exhaustively; where bail granted to an accused can be cancelled:- (i) by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interfering with the course of investigation, (iii) attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of their fleeing to another country, (vi) attempted to make themselves scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempted to place themselves beyond the reach of his surety, etc. there is neither any allegation against the petitioner of violating any terms and conditions of the bail nor the petitioner has committed any act of omission or commission which can even remotely be referred to the grounds for which the bail granted to an accused can be cancelled. 6. The undisputed fact remains that the advocate of the petitioner filed a petition to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner and to represent the petitioner on 18.03.2023 so it was incumbent upon the learned A.C.J.M/ C.J.M, Ranchi when such a petition is filed either to reject or to allow or to pass some order in respect of such petition but the perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned A.C.J.M/ C.J.M, Ranchi has not passed any order either allowing or rejecting the prayer for representation of the petitioner by his lawyer. The perusal of the impugned order further reveals that there was no direction for personal appearance of the petitioner on 18.03.2023. 7. It is a settled principle of law that when there is no direction for personal appearance of an accused on a particular date for any specific purpose and if a petition for representation is filed by the advocate, the same shall ordinarily be allowed. 7. It is a settled principle of law that when there is no direction for personal appearance of an accused on a particular date for any specific purpose and if a petition for representation is filed by the advocate, the same shall ordinarily be allowed. So far as the conduct of the petitioner in failing to produce any order of this Court is concerned, in the absence of any stay order passed by this Court, the learned A.C.J.M/ C.J.M, Ranchi could have proceeded with the case but cancellation of the bail for merely not furnishing an information is not permissible in the law, hence, the A.C.J.M/ C.J.M, Ranchi has committed grave illegality in cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner on 18.03.2023 merely because some information about the status of the appeal was not furnished by him. 8. Now, coming to the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.213 of 2023 is concerned, the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by ignoring this illegality in the order passed by the learned ACJM, Ranchi and confirming the said order. Hence, both the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.213 of 2023 and also the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.2314 of 2019 being not sustainable in law are quashed and set-aside and the bail granted to the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.2314 of 2019 is restored. 9. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent only. 10. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of being infructuous.