Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mr. Anant Bijay Singh, J.
Satyendra Kumar Jha - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
A.B.A. No. 2546 of 2017
Decided On : 13-12-2017
Anticipatory Bail - Indian Penal Code - 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B - Cr.P.C. 438(2) - Supreme Court judgment on continuation of prosecution after complainant's death
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving offenses under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The court considered reports and affidavits regarding the death of the complainant and the process server's findings.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, directing them to surrender within four weeks and providing conditions for bail. The court also noted that the trial court had not considered a Supreme Court judgment regarding the continuation of prosecution after the complainant's death.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code, along with the consideration of the trial court's failure to apply a relevant Supreme Court judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the circumstances of the case and the failure of the trial court to consider a Supreme Court judgment, which highlighted the continuation of prosecution even after the complainant's death in cases involving certain offenses.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners and directed them to surrender within four weeks, providing conditions for bail. Additionally, the court directed the dissemination of the Supreme Court judgment to judicial officers and the formulation of a training module based on the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Anant Bijay Singh, J. - Since, both the anticipatory bail applications arise out of one and the same case, hence they are being taken up together and are being disposed of by common order.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with C.P. Case No. 2505 of 2014 for the offence under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It appears that under order dated 04.10.2017, report was called from the court concerned as to under what circumstances, order was passed on 19.07.2017 since as per report of Judge-in-Charge, Dhanbad, complainant died one year ago and also as to whether steps have been taken for substitution of the complainant or not and further directed to submit report to this court on or before 13.12.2017.
4. Further, the Judge-in-Charge, Dhanbad was directed to obtain an affidavit from the process server in support of his report and to submit to this Court before 13.12.2017.
5. It appears that affidavit of the process server has been received through Judge-in-Charge, Dhanbad in which process server has stated that he had searched for the respondent Sakaldeo Gour, but he found the land lord Nand Kishore Sharma present, who said that respondent was residing in his house as tenant, but died about one year ago.
6. Further letter of Sri Ranjeet Kumar Choudhary, learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad contains the report submitted by Shikha Agrawal, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad dated 04.12.2017, the report reveals as under:
"In this regard, I have to submit that no information regarding the death of the complainant has been filed before this court by the complainant''s lawyer and the attendance on behalf of the complainant is still being filed by the concerned counsel for the complainant and no petition has been filed for substitution by the complainant''s lawyer before this Court."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Further, it has been submitted that no case under the alleged offences is made out against the petitioners. The petitioner-Satyendra Kumar Jha is a genuine power of attorney holder of accused No. 1, namely Bishundeo Prasad Singh in which capacity he transferred the land in favour of complainant, who has earlier filed another complaint being C.P. Case No. 2469 of 2014.
8. Learned A.P.P opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the above named petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks from the date of this order and in the event of their arrest or surrender the Court below shall enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/( Rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of Miss Shikha Agarwal, learned J.M, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with C.P. Case No. 2505 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973
10. Further, from perusal of report dated 04.12.2017, it appears that learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1860 of 2017 (arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 4580 of 2017) dated 03.11.2017 "Chand Devi Daga & Ors. v. Manju K. Humatani & Ors. ":
"A Bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan observed that even in case of trial of summons case, it is not necessary or mandatory that after death of complainant, the complaint is to be rejected in exercise of the power under proviso to Section 256(1), the magistrate can proceed with the complaint.
As the complaint alleged offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the I.P.C, the court also observed that there is no provision in Chapter XIX "Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates'' that in the event of death of complainant, the complai
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
