In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Cr.M.P.No.557 of 2012

Barnabas Tirkey…………………………….Petitioner

V E R S U S

State of Jharkhand………………….Opposite Party

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD

For the Petitioner : Mr.Arun Kumar

For the State :A.P.P

4/ 1.10.12.

This application is directed against the order dated 6.1.2012

passed in Cr.Rev.No.263 of 2011, which had been preferred against

the order dated 17.6.2004 whereby and whereunder the revision

application was dismissed on account of being barred by limitation.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had absolutely no knowledge that any case has been

registered against him. However, on submission of the charge sheet,

cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 279 and 337 of

the Indian Penal Code and then summon was ordered to be issued

against the petitioner. Without there being any service of summon,

warrant of arrest bailable was first ordered to be issued against the

petitioner and then non-bailable warrant was issued. Thereafter

without there being any report regarding execution of warrant of

arrest, impugned order dated 17.6.2004 was passed whereby and

whereunder permanent warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued

against the petitioner after the petitioner was declared permanent

absconder and as such, those orders being quite bad are fit to be set

aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

against the order dated 17.6.2004, revision application had been filed

but the court below without taking into account the facts stated above,

dismissed the revision application after holding that the application is

barred by limitation and as such, that order suffers from illegality.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on

perusal of the record including the order sheet annexed with this

application, it does appear that without there being any service of

summon, first warrant of arrest bailable and then non-bailable was

issued and further without having report relating to execution of the

warrant of arrest, the order dated 17.6.2004 has been passed

whereby permanent warrant of arrest was issued against the

petitioner after the petitioner was declared absconder.

Thus, all the orders under which warrant of arrest bailable,

warrant of arrest non-bailable and also the order dated 17.6.2004

being bad in law are hereby quashed.

In the result, this application stands allowed.

However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the court

below within three weeks from today, failing which the court below

would be at liberty to take all recourse for apprehension of the

petitioner.

( R. R.Prasad, J.)

ND/