Sanoj Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

On repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the petitioner.

This matter was listed yesterday and yesterday also, learned counsel for the petitioner was absent and considering that the matter before the learned court was fixed for judgment, the matter was posted for today.

In this petition, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in ST Case No.83 of 2014, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of the I.O., was rejected and the learned court has passed the order for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 13.07.2023, the interim protection has been provided to the petitioner.

In the petition, it has been averred that 15 chargesheeted witnesses were examined. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 and the said petition was rejected. Aggrieved with that, the petitioner moved before this Court by way of filing Criminal Revision No.245 of 2022 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.02.2023. The petitioner has also filed Criminal Revision No.401 of 2021 before this Court challenging the order dated 26.02.2022 passed by the learned court, whereby, the prayer to exhibit the FSL report on the basis of the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 293 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the learned court. The said criminal revision was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2023.

Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel for the State submits that against the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.245 of 2022, the petitioner moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said petition has already been dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2023.

The Court has perused the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 and finds that the learned court has recorded in the said order that similar petition was earlier filed by the petitioner on the ground that he wants to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court against the order dated 25.02.2023 passed by the High Court and vide order dated 13.03.2023, an order was already passed by the learned court and till passing of the said order, no stay order was produced before the learned court of any higher court by the defence and the matter was fixed for judgment. The second petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed through Case Information System (CIS), which is a mandatory requirement though the petition filed by the petitioner dated 13.03.2023 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was not filed through CIS. The petitioner was already having the process of filing the petition. The learned court has further found that in the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the prayer was made to summon the I.O. so that he can rebut Ext.5 as per the order of the High Court dated 17.02.2023 in Criminal Revision No.401 of 2021. The learned court has further recorded that on the very last date i.e. 05.04.2023, the petitioner filed a petition in the light of the order passed by the High Court dated 17.02.2023 with a prayer to permit him to rebut the report of SFSL report (Ext.5), on which, a detailed order was passed by the learned court and till that date, the petitioner has not preferred any petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. In view of these facts, the learned court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is only trying to linger the matter at the fag end. Thereafter considering the provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C., the impugned order has been passed by the learned court. This court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

Apart from that, how casually the present petition is being persuaded by the petitioner shows that once the interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner, he is trying to delay the matter. The matter was posted before the learned court for judgment. The court finds that the petitioner has already preferred two criminal revisions being Criminal Revision Nos. 401 of 2021 and 245 of 2022. The petitioner has further moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.2289 of 2022. He again preferred another Cr.M.P. being No. 4324 of 2022 and he has further moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.3910 of 2022 and he also preferred Transfer Petition (Cr.) No.10 of 2023 before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2023 by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, it appears that the petitioner is only trying to delay the matter.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

Interim order, earlier granted by this Court, stands vacated.