Jharkhand High Court

Manik Mochi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2012

Author:
H.C.Mishra

Bench:
H.C.Mishra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A No. 7110 of 2012
-------
Md. Naim Ansari .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s. Vishal Kumar Tiwary
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

02/ 21.09.2012
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Khunti P.S.
Case No.32 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 110 of 2012, for the offence
under
Section 392
of the Indian Penal Code.

From the F.I.R. it appears that the case relates to robbery.
In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petitioner Md. Naim Ansari, is directed to be released on bail,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.,
Khunti, in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No.32 of 2012, corresponding to
G.R. No. 110 of 2012.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 7111 of 2012

-------

Manoj Raut .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s. Sudhansu Kumar Deo
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

02/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Madhu (W.B.)
P.S. Case No.123 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1375 of 2012, for the
offence under
Sections 380
,
,
of the Indian Penal Code.

From the F.I.R. it appears that the case relates to theft in a quarter and
the petitioner was apprehended with stolen articles.

In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petitioner Manoj Raut, is directed to be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hazaribag, in connection with Madhu (W.B.) P.S. Case No.123 of 2012,
corresponding to G.R. No. 1375 of 2012.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 7112 of 2012

-------

Ajit Kumar Singh .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s. Rajesh Kumar Singh
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

02/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Ramgarh P.S.
Case No.145 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1752 of 2012, for the offence
under
Sections 399
/
of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 25
(1-B)(a),
26 / 35 of the
Arms Act
.

From the F.I.R. it appears that the petitioner was apprehended alongwith
other co-accused persons. It also appears that the fire arms were recovered
from the possession of other co-accused persons and not from the possession
of this petitioner.

In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petitioner Ajit Kumar Singh, is directed to be released on bail,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hazaribag, in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.145 of
2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1752 of 2012.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 7049 of 2012

-------

Amjad Khan .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s.Shildhar Krishna Murthy
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

02/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bagodar P.S.
Case No.153 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1235 of 2012, for the offence
under
Sections 399
/
of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 25
(1-B)(a)/
26 / 35 of the
Arms Act
.

From the F.I.R. it appears that the petitioner was apprehended alongwith
other co-accused persons. It also appears that the fire arms were recovered
from the possession of other co-accused persons and not from the possession
of this petitioner.

In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petitioner Amjad Khan, is directed to be released on bail, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Giridih, in connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No.153 of 2012, corresponding
to G.R. No. 1235 of 2012.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6548 of 2012

-------

Ashok Kumar Mehta .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s. Shailendra Jit
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

02/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Sadar P.S.
Case No.162 of 2001, corresponding to G.R. No. 729 of 2001, for the offence
under
Sections 395
/
of the Indian Penal Code.

The case relates to dacoity in the house of the informant. It also appears
that one of the culprits was apprehended and he disclosed the names of the
other co-accused who had managed to flee away, including that of this
petitioner. The impugned order shows that the petitioner was not put on T.I.P.
In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petitioner Ashok Kumar Mehta, is directed to be released on
bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hazaribag, in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.162 of 2001,
corresponding to G.R. No. 729 of 2001.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6549 of 2012

-------

Pradeep Pandey @ Pradip Pandey
@ Pradip Kumar Pandey .... Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

-------

For the Petitioner : : M/s. Amit Kumar Das
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

02/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with

Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No.19 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 243 of
2012, for the offence under
Section 387
of the Indian Penal Code.

Though it is alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner had gone to the Fair
Price Shop of the informant for demanding levy, but the impugned order
shows that prior to the institution of this case the petitioner along with the co-
villagers had reported against the bungling of the food grains made in the Fair
Price Shop of the informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in this case due to fact that the petitioner had made
allegations against the informant before the Marketing Officer.

In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petitioner Pradeep Pandey @ Pradip Pandey @ Pradip
Kumar Pandey, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila, in
connection with Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No.19 of 2012, corresponding to
G.R. No. 243 of 2012.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6531 of 2012

-------

Bir Singh Munda .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s. Nilesh Kumar
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

02/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Tamar P.S.
Case No.07 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 336 of 2012, for the offence
under
Sections 302
/
/
of the Indian Penal Code.

The case relates to death of the son of the informant, whose dead body
was subsequently recovered in a decomposed state.

From the F.I.R. as well as the impugned order, It is apparent that the
petitioner has been made accused in this case on the basis of suspicion.

In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the petitioner Bir Singh Munda, is directed to be released on bail,
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Chandan, learned
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, or his successor, in connection with Tamar P.S.
Case No.07 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 336 of 2012.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6533 of 2012

-------

1. Upendra Singh @ Upendra Kumar Singh

2. Vijay Turi .... Petitioners

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

-------

For the Petitioners : : M/s. Pravin Kumar Pandey
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

02/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Chiniya
P.S. Case No.07 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 458 of 2012, for the
offence under
Sections 25
(1-B)(a), 26/35 of the
Arms Act
&
Section 17
of the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.

From the F.I.R. it appears that the petitioners were apprehended on
21.03.2012 on the basis of the confessional statement given by other
apprehended co-accused persons and it also appears that from the personal
possession of the petitioner no recovery was made. It also appears that other
co-accused persons were also apprehended and on the basis of the
confessional statements of the accused persons arms and ammunitions were
recovered. The accused persons admitted their connection with the extremists
group.

In the facts of this case, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail.
Accordingly, the petitioners Upendra Singh @ Upendra Kumar Singh & Vijay
Turi, are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Garhwa, in
connection with Chiniya P.S. Case No.07 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.
458 of 2012.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6541 of 2012

-------

Santosh Prasad Yadav @ Santosh Yadav .... Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

-------

For the Petitioner : : M/s. Rashmi Kumari
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

2/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Satgawan P.S
Case No.31 of 2010, corresponding to G.R No. 351 of 2010, S.T. No. 127 of
2010, for the offence under
Sections 302
/
/
of the Indian Penal Code.

From the F.I.R. it appears that the dead body of the deceased was
found and it was found that rape was committed on the deceased and she
was murdered. The petitioner has been made accused in this case as it was
informed by the daughter of the deceased that one day prior to the
occurrence the deceased had gone along with this petitioner to being her son
from the school.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in this case.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has drawn the
attention of this Court towards the case diary to show that the blood and
semen stained clothes of the petitioner were recovered from the house of the
petitioner and there is report of forensic science laboratory suggesting the
implication of the petitioner on the basis of the stains found on the clothes of
the petitioner as also on the under garments of the deceased.

In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on
bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Santosh Prasad Yadav @
Santosh Yadav, is hereby rejected.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6546 of 2012

-------

Madhu Gope .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s. Rajan Raj
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

2/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with G.R.P.S
Dhanbad Case No.69 of 2010, corresponding to G.R No. 116 of 2010, S.T.
No. 574 of 2010, for the offence under
Sections 304(B)
of the Indian Penal
Code and
Section 3
/
of the Dowry Prohibition Act and alternatively
section
of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner is the father-in-law of the deceased and in view of the
nature of allegation against him for subjecting the deceased to cruelty and
torture for demand of dowry and committing dowry death, the bail application
of this petitioner was earlier rejected twice on merits vide order dated
05.01.2011 in B.A. No. 7022 of 2010 and vide order dated 05.12.2011 in B.A.
No. 5629 of 2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail.
In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on
bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Madhu Gope, is hereby
rejected.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6547 of 2012

-------

Tapan Das .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s. Satyajit Bakshi
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

2/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Chakulia P.S.
Case No.32 of 2011, corresponding to G.R No. 229 of 2011, for the offence
under
Sections 302
/
/
/
of the Indian Penal Code.

From the F.I.R. it appears that the case relates to murder of one
Madan Mohan Kisku who was going in a vehicle and the driver of the
deceased was also injured in the occurrence. The petitioner is not named in
the F.I.R., but the case diary shows that the petitioner was apprehended and
put on T.I.P. and he has been identified by the injured driver, to be the person
who had murdered the deceased.

In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on
bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Tapan Das, is hereby
rejected.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6528 of 2012

-------

Gunadhar Paul .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s. R.P.Mukherjee
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

2/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Mosabani
P.S. Case No.16 of 2010, corresponding to G.R No. 81 of 2010, S.T. Case No.
247 of 2010, for the offence under
Sections 302
/
of the Indian Penal Code.

The case relates to murder of the husband of the informant and the
informant is the eye witness to the occurrence. There is direct allegation
against the petitioner to have assaulted the deceased causing his death at
the spot.

In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on
bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Gunadhar Paul, is hereby
rejected.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6550 of 2012

-------

Manik Mochi .... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner : : M/s. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

2/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Jharia
(Alakdiha) P.S. Case No.418 of 2011, corresponding to G.R No. 3646 of 2011,
S.T. Case No. 211 of 2012, for the offence under
Sections 302
/
of the
Indian Penal Code.

The case relates to murder of the husband of the informant, who was
taken away by this petitioner for taking liquor. As a torch was recovered near
the dead body, which was identified to be that of the petitioner, the bail
application of this petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 25.1.2012 in
B.A. No. 9509 of 2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail.
In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on
bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Manik Mochi, is hereby
rejected.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6519 of 2012

-------

Anil Kumar Yadav @ Anil Yadav .... Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

-------

For the Petitioner : : M/s. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

2/ 21.09.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
State.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Mohanpur
P.S. Case No.101 of 2011, corresponding to G.R No. 395 of 2011, S.C. No.
244 of 2011, for the offence under
Sections 147
/
/
/
/
/
/

120B
and
of the Indian Penal Code.

In view of direct allegation against the petitioner to have assaulted the
deceased due to which the deceased died, the bail application of this
petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 21.12.2011 in B.A. No. 7875
of 2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail.
In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on
bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner Anil Kumar Yadav @ Anil
Yadav, is hereby rejected.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A No. 6544 of 2012

-------

Dhena Marandi & Ors. .... Petitioners

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

-------

For the Petitioners : : M/s. Ram Lakhan Yadav
For the State : : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

2/ 21.09.2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to file the fresh true typed
copy of the F.I.R..

Let this matter be listed in the next week, by that time the legible and
true typed copy of the F.I.R. should be brought on record.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 207 of 2005

-------

Nasir Sheikh ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sukrali Sheikh
3. Jumarati Sheikh ..... Opposite Parties
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA
-------
For the Petitioner: : M/s. V.P.Singh
For the State: : Mr. A.P.P.
-------

04/ 21.09.2012. No one appears for the petitioner in spite of repeated calls. Learned
counsels for the State as also for private opposite parties are present. On
the earlier occasion also, no one had appeared for the petitioner in spite of
repeated calls, as such the case was adjourned for giving an opportunity to
the learned counsel. Today also no one has appeared for the petitioner in
spite of repeated calls. As such, I have gone through the record.

This revision application is directed against the order dated
09.02.2005 passed by Sri Krishna Murari Gupta, learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Garhwa, in Criminal Rev. No. 189 of 2001,
whereby the Court below allowed the revision, giving discretion to the Court
of S.D.M. Garhwa to pass necessary orders by invoking or exercising the
power u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C.

It appears from the impugned order that a proceeding
u/s 145
Cr.P.C.
was going on between the parties in the Court of S.D.M., Garhwa, in Misc.
Case No. 173 of 1997 and an order was passed on 29.11.2011, asking the
Notary Public to appear before the Court on 05.12.2001 with the affidavit
register.

The said order was challenged in the Revisional Court below and the
Court below found that the said order was not passed in exercise of the
power
u/s 311
of the Cr.P.C. The Court below also took into consideration the
fact that such applications were filed earlier, which were rejected by the
S.D.M. Garhwa. The Revisional Court below allowed the revision application
and set aside the impugned order, but gave the option to the learned S.D.M.,
Garhwa to invoke the power
u/s 311
of the Cr.P.C. if the evidence of the
Notary Public appeared to be essential for just decision of the case and with
this observation the Criminal Revision was allowed.

I do not find any illegality and / or irregularity in the impugned order,
worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this
application, which is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be
sent back forthwith.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 125 of 2012

-------

Ramesh Singh @ Ramesh Kumar Singh ..... Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

-------

For the Petitioner: : M/s. J.Mazumdar
For the State: : M/s. A.P.P.
-------

02/ 21.09.2012. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2012 passed by
Sri K. K. Jha, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in Chirkunda P.S. Case
No. 96 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1693 of 2011, whereby the
Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for release
of the seized iron scrap in connection with this case in favour of the
petitioner.

The impugned order shows that the petitioner had produced the
documents with respect to the purchase of the iron scrap on which a report
was called for from the concerned police station. The Court below however,
upon getting the report of the concerned police station, opined that the
Investigating Officer had not verified the genuineness of the documents
though the Investigating Officer had stated that on the basis of the cash
memo produced by the accused petitioner it had transpired that the
petitioner had purchased the iron scrap from the dealers.

In view of the fact that the said report was not given by the
Investigating Officer after verifying the genuineness of the documents of
the seized iron scrap, the Court below ought to have directed the
Investigating Officer to submit the report after proper verification about the
genuineness of the documents and to have disposed of the application
upon getting the report.

As such, the impugned order dated 23.01.2012 passed by Sri K. K.
Jha, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 96 of
2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1693 of 2011, is hereby, set aside
and it is directed that the Court below shall direct the Officer Incharge of
the police station to submit the report after proper verification of the
documents produced by the petitioner and the Court below shall pass the
order afresh upon getting the verification report from the police station.

This revision application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as
above.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 85 of 2012

-------

Shambhu Nath Agarwal ..... Petitioner

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA

-------

For the Petitioner: : M/s.A.K.Chaturvedi
For the State: : M/s. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.

-------

02/ 21.09.2012. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.2011
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, in
Simdega P.S. Case No. 17 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 58 of
2005, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for release of
the truck in question in favour of the petitioner was rejected by the
Court below stating that no document was produced by the
petitioner with respect to the seized truck.

It appears that the a truck was seized by the police, as it was
found with 225 bags of wheat and Simdega P.S. Case No. 17 of 2005,
corresponding to G.R. No. 58 of 2005 was registered for the offence
u/s 414, 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code
and
Section 7
of the
Essential Commodities Act. The son of the petitioner was also made
accused in the case.

It appears from the impugned order that a confiscation
proceeding with respect to the truck in question was initiated and
the truck was confiscated by the order of the D.C. Simdega. The said
confiscation of the truck was challanged before the Sessions Judge
Simdega, and the confiscation of the truck was set aside. It also
appears from the impugned order that the order taking cognizance
was also challenged by the son of the petitioner, who was an
accused in the case, and the order taking cognizance was also set
aside and the case has been dropped against the son of the
petitioner.

The petitioner, claiming himself to be the owner of the truck,
filed the application for the release of the truck in question stating
that the original documents were seized along with the truck and he
had no documents left with him. His application was rejected by the
Court below by the impugned order dated 20.9.2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn the attention of
this Court towards Annexure-5, which appears to be the copy of a
report called for by the Officer Incharge of Simdega Police Station,
mentioning that there was no document with respect to the truck in

-2-

question and asking the District Transport Officer, Ranchi, to report
about the ownership of the truck and it appears that the District
Transport Officer, Ranchi, had reported that the truck belonged to
the petitioner. However, it appears that this document has also not
been discussed in the impugned order.

In view of the fact that the original documents of the truck are
not available, in the peculiar facts of this case, I am of the
considered view that the Court below should have taken into
consideration the report of the District Transport Officer, Ranchi, if
any, available on the record, or aught to have called for a fresh
report from the District Transport Officer, Ranchi, and to have
passed the appropriate order in accordance with law. It goes without
saying that if the ownership of the truck is found to be with the
petitioner, the truck should be released in favour of the petitioner, as
the criminal case as well as the confiscation proceeding, have
already been dropped.

With these directions, the impugned order dated 20.9.2011
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, in
Simdega P.S. Case No. 17 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 58 of
2005, is hereby set aside and the Court below is directed to pass the
order afresh in view of the directions as above. This revision
application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above.

(H.C.Mishra, J.)
D.S.