IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.328 of 2024

------

Ashutosh Sharma, aged about 28 years, son of Sri Anurag Sharma, resident of A-16, Shastri Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Shastri

Nagar, District- Jaipur, Rajasthan.

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Sri Ram Pravesh Kumar, S/o Late Brij Nandan Singh, the

Regional Officer, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Dhanbad, Regional Office, P.O., P.S. & District-

Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

… Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

For the OP No.2 : None

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties

2. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party No.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of

repeated calls.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 06 of 2024 arising out of A.B.P. No. 3582 of 2023 in Complaint Case No. 797 of 2023 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,

Dhanbad has rejected the prayer for extension of time of the petitioner to surrender before the court concerned.

4. The brief fact of the case is that vide order dated 02.12.2023 passed in A.B.P. No. 3582 of 2023, the petitioner was given the privileges of anticipatory bail with the condition that he has to appear before the trial court within three weeks from the date of that order but the petitioner did not appear before the trial court within the stipulated period of three weeks. The petitioner then filed a petition for extension of time but the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he does not know as to when such petition was filed. The ground taken in the petition was that since the petitioner was ill and advised to take complete rest for three days vide the prescription dated 19.12.2023, hence, he could not appear before the trial court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad considered that the explanation for the delay is of three days period from 19.12.2023 but there is no explanation for the rest of the period apart from three days. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad was of the considered view that the approach of the petitioner was leisurely and negligent. Hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad rejected the prayer for extension of time.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan who tends to his ailing grandfather and could not come to surrender immediately. It is next submitted that the petitioner also fell ill and was suffering from fever; hence, he could not travel. It is further submitted that in the most mechanical manner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad has rejected the prayer for extension of time. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that there is absolutely no explanation as to why the petitioner did not appear before the court concerned even after expiry of the three days for which the Doctor advised him to take complete rest from 19.12.2023. It is next submitted that in the absence of any cogent reason for not appearing before the trial court within the adequate time of three weeks from the date of that order by which the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner. It is next submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad was well within its discretion to reject the prayer of the petitioner. Hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad. Hence