Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1817

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
Gopi Krishna Thirkateh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Indrajit Sinha, Anjani Nandan, Vipul Poddar
For the Respondents: Priya Shrestha

A revisional order cannot be challenged in a high court on the basis of a new plea involving mixed questions of fact and law that was not previously raised before the subordinate revisional authority, as doing so would circumvent the prohibition against a second revision.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of jurisdiction - A plea involving mixed questions of fact and law not raised before the revisional court cannot be agitated for the first time when challenging the order of said court - The court exercising inherent power cannot substitute its view or entertain new evidentiary challenges that were never presented for judicial consideration before the authority below. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13)

(B) Criminal Law - Issuance of process - Satisfaction of magistrate - Where the lower court, on the basis of available records, records its satisfaction that an accused is absconding and evading justice after unsuccessful attempts to serve summons, the resulting orders for issuance of warrant and proclamation remain legally valid - Mere procedural technicalities or complaints about notice periods, when not established as factually deficient in the lower record, do not warrant interference. (Paras 14, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged multiple orders issued by the lower court regarding the issuance of a non-bailable warrant, a proclamation, and the attachment of property. These orders were previously upheld by the revisional court. Before the High Court, the petitioners introduced a new argument regarding the notice period for the proclamation, which had not been raised in the proceedings before the revisional court.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the revisional order was based on a proper assessment of the record, which included proof of the execution of the process and evidence of the accused evading arrest. It was held that since the new argument involved factual inquiries not addressed by the lower authority, it could not beentertained at this stage.

Issues: Whether a challenge to a revisional order can be sustained on a new ground involving mixed questions of fact and law that was never raised before the revisional court, and whether the process issued for absconding suspects was legally sufficient.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court cannot exercise inherent jurisdiction to overturn a revisional order based on a fresh factual argument not previously agitated, as this would effectively constitute a second revision, which is barred by fundamental legal principles.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual narrative of the criminal petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties' contentions regarding the legality of issuance of nbw, proclamations, and attachment orders. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. bar on second revision; issues not raised before the revisional court cannot be raised for the first time in high court. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. magistrate's satisfaction under section 73 crpc and procedural regularity of proclamations under section 82 crpc. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. dismissal of the criminal miscellaneous petition due to lack of merit. (Para 18)

By the Court:- I.A. No. 3650 of 2026

Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with three fold prayers to quash and set aside the orders dated 27.01.2025, 13.06.2025 and 18.10.2025 passed by learned CJM, Bokaro in B.S.City P.S. case no. 28 of 2023, whereby and where under, respectively non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, process under Section 82 of CrPC and the attachment order of the property under Section 83 of CrPC was ordered to be issued. Prayer has also been made in this petition, to quash the order dated 17.12.2025 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 169 of 2025 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro dismissed the revision and which, Cr. Rev. no. 169 of 2025 was directed against the said orders dated 27.01.2025 and 13.06.2025.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners are accused persons of B.S.City P.S. case no. 28 of 2023 involving the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 419, 420, 120 B, 34 of the IPC. On 27.01.2025, the petition was filed by the police with the prayer to issue warrant of arrest inter alia against the petitioners who are accused persons of the case, named in the FIR. The materials were produced before learned Magistrate to show that the petitioners are evading their arrest and though the police conducted raids in the house of the petitioners, who are accused persons of the case, but they were absconding. Learned Magistrate considered the materials placed before it and he was satisfied that the petitioners are evading the process of law and they are likely to tamper or destroy the evidence and they are absconding or concealing themselves and by thus considering, allowed the prayer to issue the warrant of arrest against the petitioners directing them to appear before the court of learned JMFC Bokaro at 10:30 AM on 01.03.2025. It has additionally been mentioned that the accused persons of the case are involved in the offence of heinous crime. On 13.06.2025, the Investigation Officer of the case, moved for issuance of the process against the absconding accused persons under Section 82 of CrPC including the petitioners and on the materials placed before the learned Magistrate, including the case diary, and the execution report of the Non –bailable Warrant of arrest issued against them and from the same, learned CJM, Bokaro was satisfied that the accused persons are absconding from their village and considering the same, directed for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC against them, directing the petitioners to be present personally on 16.07.2025 before learned CJM, at around 11.00 AM to 3.00 PM and in that order, it was mentioned that the Investigation Officer must publish the proclamation in all the three aforesaid modes on 17.06.2025 at around 10.00 AM. Being aggrieved by the said two orders dated 27.01.2025 and 13.06.2025, the petitioners filed Cr. Rev. No. 169 of 2025 which was ul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1817

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDAnil Kumar Choudhary, JGopi Krishna Thirkateh – AppellantVersusState of Jharkhand – RespondentCr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026

A revisional order cannot be challenged in a high court on the basis of a new plea involving mixed questions of fact and law that was not previously raised before the subordinate revisional authority, as doing so would circumvent the prohibition against a second revision.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
Gopi Krishna Thirkateh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026