Jharkhand High Court
Gopi Krishna Thirkateh @ T. Gopi Krishna vs The State Of Jharkhand ...... Opposite ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[ 2026:JHHC:10074 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026
1.Gopi Krishna Thirkateh @ T. Gopi Krishna, aged about 62 years, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Thirkateh.
2. Thirkateh Sridevi @ Mrs. Sridevi, aged about 54 years, W/o Gopi Krishna Thirkateh.
Both R/o-8-3-1102/401 Sri Nagar Colony, Near SBI, Khairatabad, P.O. Srinagar Colony, District- Hyderabad, Telangana-500073.
3. G. Sabitha @ Ms. Sabitha Gopagani, aged about 54 years, W/o G Venugopal Rao, R/o-8-2-293/82/PN/182, Prashana Nagar, Jubliee Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad, Telangana-PIN-500033 ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha , Adv.
Mr. Anjani Nandan , Adv.
Mr. Vipul Poddar , Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. PP
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
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 1 Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026 [ 2026:JHHC:10074 ] 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 2 Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026 [ 2026:JHHC:10074 ] 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 ultimately heard and disposed of vide the order dated 17.12.2025 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Bokaro. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Bokaro, it was contended by the petitioners that the order passed under Section 70 of CrPC has been issued ignoring Section 41A(3) of CrPC. So far as the order dated 13.06.2025, it was contended before the revisional court by the petitioners that the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, has been issued without having a legal foundation; being a legal NBW. It was also contended that as the revisionist nos. 1 & 2, who are the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 herein, are not residing in India and are U.S. nationals living abroad, as such NBW and proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC, cannot be issued against them. Learned revisional court considered the Lower Court Records, which revealed that at the initial stage, the Investigation Officer has sent notice to the petitioners under Section 41 A of CrPC by ordinary post as well as through WhatsApp number provided by the informant. On 13.01.2024, notice under Section 41A was also sent and subsequently at different addresses of the petitioners, the notices under Section 41A of CrPC was issued but the accused persons, did not respond to the same nor appeared before the police. It was also considered that the proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC, was duly affixed on door and wall of the flat of the petitioners, in presence of the witnesses. From the material available in the record, learned revisional court was satisfied that the materials in the record goes to show that the notices were sent to the petitioners thrice by ordinary and registered post, since the notices sent by the 3 Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026 [ 2026:JHHC:10074 ] registered posts, did not return, so it was presumed that the same has been served upon the accused persons. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the revision petitioner nos. 1 & 2, are not the residents of India, it was considered by the revisional court that the revisionists themselves have mentioned their address at Hyderabad, Telangana and they have not disclosed any address of U.S., the proclamation has already been affixed at Hyderabad address mentioned by revisionist themselves, so it is not open for them to agitate that same is illegal and the revisionists cannot take advantage of it. The revisional court also considered that though the order shows that the proclamation was issued on 13.06.2025 but the same was in fact issued on 11.06.2025 and because of typographical error, the date was wrongly mentioned as 13.06.2026 instead of 11.06.2025 and on this score also, the revisional court did not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists and the revisional court also considered the photograph of the proclamation of the process which was affixed by the I.O. in presence of the witness, thereby showing due execution of proclamation under section 82 of CrPC and without finding any illegality or irregularity in the said order, impugned before it, passed by learned by JMFC, Bokaro dated 27.01.2025 and 13.06.2025, the revision was dismissed.
4. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed challenging the revisional order dated 17.12.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Bokaro in respect of the order dated 27.01.2025 and 13.06.2025, additionally the prayer has also been made in this criminal miscellaneous petition to quash the order dated 18.10.2025, by which , the attachment order of the property under Section 83 of CrPC, has been issued by learned CJM, Bokaro but the said order dated 18.10.2025 was not challenged in the said Cr. Rev. No. 169 of 2025 and the same is for the first time, challenged in this petition.
4 Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026[ 2026:JHHC:10074 ]
5. Though this Criminal miscellaneous petition is directed against the revisional order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV Bokaro on 17.12.2025 in Cr. Rev. no. 169 of 2025, but it is urged upon by the petitioners to set aside the said Cr. Revision on a ground which is never agitated before the revisional court and the ground is that since learned CJM, Bokaro has mentioned in the order dated 13.06.2025 that the I.O. must publish the proclamation on 17.06.2025 and the accused persons were ordered to be personally present on 16.07.2025, so the proclamation has been made requiring the appearance of the petitioner in less than 30 days' time from the date of publishing the proclamation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this respect, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another reported in (2017) 3 SCC 528, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relying upon its own judgment in the case National Textile Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad; reported in (2011) 12 SCC 695, reiterated the settled principle of law that a pure legal issue can be raised at any stage of the proceeding more so when it goes to the jurisdiction of the matter. In the facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India allowed the Second Appeal and directed the Magistrate to hold the enquiry as directed in that judgment but in that case, the judgment passed by the revisional court was not set aside on a ground which was never agitated before the revisional court.
7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 18.10.2025 is not sustainable in law because the attachment order of the property of the petitioner under section 83 of CrPC has been issued against the petitioner without a valid proclamation under section 82 of CrPC without assigning sufficient reason, hence it is submitted that the prayer as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
8. Learned Spl. PP on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submit that the power under Section 528 of 5 Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026 [ 2026:JHHC:10074 ] BNSS cannot be exercised as a second revision and the order passed by revisional court, cannot be set aside on a ground which was never agitated before the revisional court and this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition so far as the order dated 27.01.2025 and the order dated 13.06.2025 is confined to the revisional order. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the State that there is no illegality in the order of issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest, as undisputedly the petitioners are accused of committing the non- bailable offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and learned Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction from the materials available in the record that the petitioners are evading their arrest. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by issuing the non billable warrant of arrest nor is there any illegality in issuing the proclamation under section 82 CrPC. Therefore, the sole ground that there is no valid proclamation under section 82 of CrPC, is not a valid ground to quash the order dated 18.10.2025 passed by learned Magistrate whereby the order of attachment of the property under section 83 of CrPC has been issued, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed.
9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, the question arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the order passed by revisional court in a Cr. Revision, can be set aside by the High court in exercise of power under Section 528 of BNSS on a ground which was never agitated before the revisional court and for the first time, is raised before the High Court.
10. It is a settled principle of law that in view of the bar under Section 397 (3) of the CrPC, the High Court cannot exercise a second revision in exercise of its inherent power and in exercise of its inherent power, when a revisional order passed by a revisional court in a criminal revision, is challenged before the High Court unless there is any illegality passed by the revisional court, 6 Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026 [ 2026:JHHC:10074 ] certainly the same cannot be interfered by the High Court in exercise of its power under section 528 of the BNSS.
11. Now in this case the petitioners for reasons best known to them did not agitate before the revisional court regarding the date fixed by learned CJM, Bokaro on 17.06.2025 for publication of proclamation, apparently because the trial court record was before the revisional court and the revisional court on the basis of the materials available in the record, has observed that the proclamation has been made by observing the due process of law, by also affixing the proclamation, on the doors and walls of the residence of the petitioners in presence of the witnesses and even the photographs of the same are also there.
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, certainly, an order passed by a revisional court in criminal revision, cannot be set aside by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the BNSS, for a ground involving the facts, which was never agitated before the revisional court and thereby the revisional court had no opportunity of applying its judicial mind to such a submission.
13. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as relied upon in the case of Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another (supra) is concerned, in that case also, the revisional court's order was never set aside on a plea that was taken before a revisional court but for the first time, was taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Moreover the point agitated in this case before this court for the first time, is not a pure question of law rather it is a mixed question of facts and law, as to whether proclamation was in fact made, the photographs of which are there and there is no averment in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition as to on which date the proclamation was in fact made, when the same was made by inter alia affixing the same on the doors and walls of the house of the petitioners and as is evident from order impugned before this court passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision no. 169 of 2025 that the 7 Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026 [ 2026:JHHC:10074 ] photographs of the proclamation being affixed on the doors and walls in presence of the witnesses was available in the record.
14. So far as the order dated 27.01.2025 is concerned, Section 73 of the CrPC vests the power inter alia upon a Judicial Magistrate to direct a warrant to any person, who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioners, are accused of committing non-bailable offences inter alia punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Learned Magistrate, in no uncertain manner, has recorded his satisfaction based on the materials available in the record that the petitioners are evading the process of law and they are absconding and concealing themselves, so mentioning that the offences are heinous, may be erroneously, will not render the order dated 27.01.2025, illegal when otherwise the Magistrate was competent to issue and direct warrant of arrest and he has done so, which has been affirmed by the revisional court and there is no illegality in the revisional court's order.
15. So far as the order dated 27.01.2025 passed in B.S. City P.S. case no. 28 of 2023 is concerned, learned CJM, Bokaro has passed order for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC and after being satisfied that the petitioners are absconding and fixed the time and place for their appearance. The undisputed fact remains that the same was received by police officer concerned, on 13.06.2025. The undisputed fact remains that the proclamation was made by affixing the proclamation on walls and doors of the house of the petitioners in presence of the witnesses and photographs of the same was taken by concerned authority but nowhere the petitioners have mentioned that on which date, the said proclamation was made.
16. Under such circumstances, mere mentioning in the order by learned CJM, Bokaro, that the I.O. must publish the proclamation on 17.06.2025, will not itself render the order illegal warranting interference of this Court, to set aside the revisional order by 8 Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026 [ 2026:JHHC:10074 ] which such order has been affirmed on a ground which was never agitated before the revisional court.
17. So far as the order dated 18.10.2025 is concerned, the sole ground agitated in respect of the same is that there was no valid proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC, as already discussed in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order by which the proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC has been issued. So once having held so, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 18.10.2025 to quash the same in exercise of the power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.
18. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 23rd March, 2026 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 18.04.2026 9 Cr.M.P. No. 371 of 2026