Dablu Kujur vs State of Jharkhand - 2024 Supreme(SC) 222

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 222

BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHAL
Dablu Kujur – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kumar Shivam, Adv. Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sarma, Adv. Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Adv. Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Nitya Sharma, Adv. Mr. T. G. Shahi, Adv. Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv. Mr. Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Adv. Mr. Sharanya Sinha, Adv. Ms. Keerti Jaya, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, AOR

Judgement Key Points

What is the importance and mandatory compliance of a Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the context of taking cognizance and filing a charge-sheet? What are the options available to the Magistrate when a Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. concludes that an offence appears to have been committed, or that no offence appears to have been committed? What directions and compliance measures did the Supreme Court lay down regarding the contents and completeness of Police Reports under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the consequent duties of the investigating officer and police administration?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the importance and mandatory compliance of a Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the context of taking cognizance and filing a charge-sheet?

What are the options available to the Magistrate when a Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. concludes that an offence appears to have been committed, or that no offence appears to have been committed?

What directions and compliance measures did the Supreme Court lay down regarding the contents and completeness of Police Reports under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the consequent duties of the investigating officer and police administration?

JUDGMENT :

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant-accused, by way of the present appeal has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in B.A. No. 11895 of 2022, whereby the High Court has dismissed the said application seeking his release on bail in respect of the FIR being Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 238/2022 dated 30.05.2022 registered for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B/34 of IPC and Section 25(1-B) A/26/27/35 of the Arms Act.

3. During the course of arguments, it was apprised to the Court that the trial is at the fag end and almost all the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution except one witness.

4. In view of the above, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail, more particularly, when the trial is at the fag end.

5. Before parting, it may be noted that on 17.07.2023, this Court (Coram - Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi) had passed the following order:

Having gone

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 222

BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHALDablu Kujur – AppellantVersusState of Jharkhand – Respondent

What is the importance and mandatory compliance of a Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the context of taking cognizance and filing a charge-sheet?

What are the options available to the Magistrate when a Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. concludes that an offence appears to have been committed, or that no offence appears to have been committed?

What directions and compliance measures did the Supreme Court lay down regarding the contents and completeness of Police Reports under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the consequent duties of the investigating officer and police administration?

Cases Referred (3)

BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHAL
Dablu Kujur – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent