Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Absence of Material to Suggest Evasion of Arrest Renders Non-Bailable Warrant Unsustainable”: Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Orders Against Julekha Khatoon

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Jharkhand High Court, under the bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, quashed three pivotal orders against Julekha Khatoon, including a non-bailable warrant. The Court highlighted the lack of evidence indicating the petitioner’s evasion of arrest and non-fulfillment of mandatory legal prerequisites.

The petition, Cr.M.P. No. 4551 of 2022, was filed by Julekha Khatoon against the State of Jharkhand. It challenged the legality of the orders dated January 4, 2016, February 23, 2016, and March 31, 2016, issued by the learned SDJM, Dhanbad, which involved a non-bailable warrant, a proclamation under Section 82, and an order for attachment of property under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C.

Justice Choudhary scrutinized the submissions and underlying facts. He notably observed, “There is absolutely no material in the record, to suggest that the petitioner is evading his arrest.” Regarding the issuance of the proclamation under Section 82, the Court underscored the necessity of recording satisfaction that the accused is absconding or concealing to evade arrest, which was absent. The order for property attachment was also found legally infirm due to the lack of a detailed description of the property and absence of recorded reasons.

The judgment revolved around the procedural and substantive aspects of Sections 73, 82, and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), emphasizing stringent adherence to legal norms before issuing warrants, proclamations, or attachment orders.

Decision: Justice Choudhary annulled all three challenged orders, citing their unsustainable nature in law, and instructed the lower court to reissue orders in compliance with legal standards.

Date of Decision: January 5, 2024.

Julekha Khatoon vs. The State of Jharkhand

 

Latest Legal News