Advertisement
Advertisement

― Advertisement ―

HomeJitu Kumar @ Jitu vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ......

Jitu Kumar @ Jitu vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 16 March, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Jharkhand High Court

Jitu Kumar @ Jitu vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 16 March, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                           (2026:JHHC:7303)




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No.667 of 2026
                                         ------

Jitu Kumar @ Jitu, Aged about 36 years, Son of Lal Babu Prasad,
Resident of: Shivshakti Colony, Sector-IX/D, B.S. City, P.O. Sector-
IX, P.S. Harla, District – Bokaro (Jharkhand)
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

——

SPONSORED

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate
Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Savita Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.

——

                                        PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order

dated 21.09.2020 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro in Marafari P.S.

Case No.66 of 2019 (S.T. No.49 of 2021) whereby and where under non-

bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner and also

to quash and set aside the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No.172 of

2025 by which the said illegal order of issuance of non-bailable warrant

of arrest, has been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-

IV, Bokaro.

1 Cr. M.P. No.667 of 2026

(2026:JHHC:7303)

3. The brief fact of the case is that on 21.09.2020, the Investigating

Officer of the case filed an application for issuance of non-bailable

warrant of arrest inter alia against the petitioner. The learned S.D.J.M.,

Bokaro upon perusal of the record found that the charge-sheet has been

submitted against the co-accused and cognizance of the offence has

been taken while supplementary investigation is going on against the

petitioner and by thus considering, allowed the prayer of the

Investigating Officer to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner challenged the said

order vide Criminal Revision No.172 of 2025. The same was ultimately

heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV,

Bokaro. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro concluded

that keeping in view the serious nature of offences involved in the case

that is the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 120B, 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, no illegality has

been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the

Criminal Revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts

below have failed to consider the mandate of Section 73 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure which empowers inter alia a Magistrate to direct

warrant of arrest inter alia of any person who is accused of a non-

bailable offence and evading his arrest. It is then submitted that both

the learned courts below have failed to consider that there is no

2 Cr. M.P. No.667 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:7303)

satisfaction recorded by the Magistrate concerned that the petitioner is

evading his arrest and without recording such satisfaction, the non-

bailable warrant of arrest having been issued, both the impugned

orders be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand

vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant

Cr.M.P. and submits that the very fact that the learned Magistrate has

issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner goes to

show that there were sufficient materials available in the record for the

court concerned to be satisfied that the petitioner is evading his arrest.

Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be

dismissed.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after

carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is

pertinent to refer to Section 73 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

which reads as under:-

“73. Warrant may be directed to any person.–(1) The Chief
Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class may direct
a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the
arrest of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or of any
person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading
arrest.” (Emphasis supplied)

inter alia empowers the Magistrate of First Class to direct a

warrant inter alia to any person who is an accused of a non-bailable

offence and is evading his arrest.

3 Cr. M.P. No.667 of 2026

(2026:JHHC:7303)

8. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the undisputed fact

remains that the petitioner is involved in commission of non-bailable

offences punishable under Section 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code

but this Court has no hesitation in holding that no satisfaction has been

recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned for directing

issue of warrant to the effect that the accused person is evading his

arrest. In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in

holding that the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro has committed a gross

illegality in issuing the non-bailable warrant of arrest, hence, the same

is liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. Accordingly, the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the learned

S.D.J.M., Bokaro in Marafari P.S. Case No.66 of 2019 (S.T. No.49 of 2021)

is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above.

10. So far as the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No.172 of

2025 is concerned, in the same the learned Additional Sessions Judge-

IV, Bokaro has failed to consider that though the condition precedent

for issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest inter alia is that the accused

person concerned, must be an accused of a non-bailable offence and

evading his arrest and also failed to appreciate that the learned

Magistrate failed to record any satisfaction that the petitioner-who is

the accused person of the case, is evading his arrest, before directing

warrant of arrest against him. Hence, the said order dated 17.12.2025

4 Cr. M.P. No.667 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:7303)

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Criminal

Revision No.172 of 2025 is also not sustainable in law and is liable to be

quashed and set aside.

11. Accordingly, the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No.172 of

2025, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above.

12. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro may pass

a fresh order in accordance with law.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, is allowed to

the aforesaid extent only.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 16th of March, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 17/03/2026

5 Cr. M.P. No.667 of 2026



Source link