Jharkhand High Court
Mannan Mallick vs Ase Diat on 1 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revisiun No. 1239 of 2016
with ,
Criminal Revision No. 1176 of 2016
with
Criminal Revision Ne. 1528 of 2016
in Criminal Revision No. 1239 of 2016:
. Mannan Mallick, sfo Md. Sueman, vo MIG A Housing Colony, Dhanbad,
0 & PS-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad
2. Hubban Mallick ee Mad. Hubban Mallick, s'o Shri Mannan Mallick, ro
MUG A Heusing Colony, Dhanbad, PO & PS-Dh anhbad, UNstrict-Dhanbad
son Petitioners
in Criminal Revision No. O76 of 2016:
- Nivay Singh, s sio- late Raj Narayan Su neh He Raghupur, PO-Dhanbad,
= PS-Sara idhelay | e retract Dhanbad By ;
2 " Bachh meh, late Chandi P rasad Sing eth, r/o Suryoday, San raidhela, PO
& PS-Saraic . Distriet-£ Dh anbad " OF vo P etitioners
¢
"tp Criminal Revision Now 1528 of 2016: ee
'bind Kumar Singh, s/o fate R anne "Ballabyb Prasad, r/o B. 3/48, -Karmik
LSM dha anibad wien? 'etitioner
The State of Jharkhand 9 ao ow Oppusite Party
' eS tin alf cases}
: iTheough Vi
EE
"HANDRASHEKHAR
MaRS Magomdar & Advavate
Ce Cr Rev Nos. 12300016 & PEFaf2016)
Arp san Mishra, Advocate
(i Or Rev No tS! 29/5 2018)
For the State > Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Public Prosecutor
Order No.tt 'Dated: 01" October, 2001
In Criminal Revision No, 1239 of 2018, Mannan Mallick and Hubhan
Miatiok @ Md. Hubban Mallick are the petitioners and in Criminal Revision
No 1528 of 2016, Arbind Kumar Singh is the peliuioner.
2. Cominal Revision No.l176 of 2010 was filed by Niraj} Singh and
Sachha Singh. The proceeding dated [5% February 2021 In this crimimal
revision petition records statement of Sri R.S. Mayu. mudar, the learned senior
ff 2078 & ayalor ner BRUTY
x
counsel that Nieai Singh had in the meantime passed away.
3 By an order dated 23° July 2021, Criminal Revision Ne.1176 of 2016
was dismissed as ahated gua Niraj Singh who was petitioner no.J in the said
criminal revision pelilion.
a, Initially when these criminal revision petitions were listed bel Ore ML,
Yee
there was one miore petition filed by Om Prakash Lal @ OP Lala vide
Criminal Revision No. 1814 of 2016 which was also dismissed as abated on
death of Or Prakash Lal det
Ss. By a common ord OL Auoust 2016, the petitions fled under
section 227 read with section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by
nw.
beape
4%
ay
4
¥
epee,
2
£3
on
fons
we.
ent
NETS a anil other accusedd were dismiss ged b sy the learned Additional
eel 0} anbad.
33
learned Sessions Judges1¥. Dhanbad in the order
am
oot
poet, pod
poner UR
net
CE
on
ent materials are available
an record ic frarne charges a gainst the accused-applicants. The stalements of
witnesses recorded in atleast Ss. parigr aphs of the case-dlary and the
.
patie evidences referred to in pare & eaph. nos. 188, 205, 211, 378, 409 and other paragraphs of the case-diary ve e-prima-faci ele evidence of use of deadly Ww capons, explosives etc, which caused death of 4 persons and resulted tn myury 4 f.
wardere unde:
ne On perusal vs ase diat, as Nee "10d.
PO8, OF, ;
808 AS if hax been swntioned that the injuries foun persess of fajyced Pramod Bhubsi and Raf Kroner Pasi Were sawed by explusien whereas the police had aot used any and ite Prepared sasha oy FURY ¢ fue fur exp fasicn? Ay the Ree Gr fhe incident. Ir heat the iefury found on tte cpecinis and ie so mentioned Dehornud mead H has heen 9 ad é Chauhan at right lower les in was recovered wes due fo explosion aad ihe fem, ~ a sy aN 'et he ~ aN, ome, rn od ~ na mae ~ mm Reg weed expronne ¢ ay per case diary Jn parasdi? fl Beer wir Mionar Soreb sustained a a hea "blunt + object aiid nal Oy fire @ is injury 3 eur' of Adel Kader. 2 > sare iy PAPERS FS w ductor opine a thie the GUMPY Reay Ae caused by & pHarion, Op pore-d ay fy ive punctured weurd were found on ihe ' ELE has decpased Ounesh Hari and the in yeries agit be caused due lo explosion, The aforesaid fa ais SHOW thea eed cated : i sa dee.
BER aeests 7 Sedvsagee fx -
The 4 pesitiamiers in their peniiicnny herve ? injured ceed decease a sustained byuries 2 pi cannot be said that the injured fired Oy tie 1 police aaly as the € sustain weed dyfuriexs due te explosion foe. HH tx i of aceused , OLCaPENCE CaM Oe ruled oad.
iratias Ae not rcached near the Coal 2 » allege ed quarters were situated and ihe ry é sudden srg sheote ge fas edhe -?
oe ihe public wor where Me alleged He by Hee learned " > ; j 232 wer f Pah, fd@ 323, 30 Arms Act and Aet. There ix f Ho oe ie a ipex © QUASTAREE Aci ane Pats z Ke biatenia iats s Showing g Stan Of FE fy Bar FEES > and the wR * cufficien Here, fhe .
rejented.
tii ip ore Kent CHR z > . '"
CHGFRE, S. "Sd azumdar, the learned senior counsel,' bas raised two-fold the pelitioners who were not physically involved jn the contentions: { wet be roped in. with-other accused, and {) there is ne OUCUIFENCE cy material to prima-facie establish involvement of the petitioners except the alleged speech by Mannan Mallick. The learned senior counsel would contend that the Ingelries conducted in the matter revealed that the paige action was unauthorized and a protest was made by thousands of persons, og who came on the scene much before the petitioners arrived the g, Mr Arpan Mis + * hra, the learmed counsel, who appears for the petitioner O16, submits that the petitioner whe is a been falsely roped in this case merely on suspicion. Lt is ' i there Is no material against this petitic x ae oner that he ether used .
any force or instigated the mob and, therefore, there is absolute dearth of > ussible material against this petitioner.
a 4 £e tO. A First Information Report was lodged an 27° April 2011 vide Dhanbad Bank More PS Case No. 342 of 2011 om the basis of a written report subrnftted by the Sub-divisional Officer, Dhanbad under sections [47/148/140/323/324/307/3459/3327/435 of the Indian Penal Code, section 27 of the Arms Act, section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and under section 3/4 af the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 198s. The petiiieners are among 27 named accused whe alongwith 8-10 thousand persons were Involved in vandalism. Subsequently, section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the report vile order dated 25° May 2011. A glanee at the written report would reveal thai the complainant was deputed to oversee the entire. aperats ion for removal ofl legal eneroschments over BROCE. ¢ quarter "S . There WAS a orieling conducted at police line at 07730 AM withoafficers of ECOL, police. offic GS aS well as Magistrates and the pe "operation for removing He egal encroe chments started at around 09:00 AM.
"
The complainant observed that within 1§ minutes about 2000 persons a there and started pelting stone af the task os sarrying deadly weapons gathere force, The complainant issued wamings on loudspeaker and direc sed the nolice personnel to disperse: the mob, howe rver, the mob became unruly and ay "attacked the police persarmel and police vehicles, Several rounds of tear pas were used and he ordered' ree Of adh ch marge by the: police p sersonnel in self defence, Ti. Sri g. S. -Mazundar, the learned senior counsel states that this is the stage when Mannan Mallick who was the local MLL VA and Niraj Singh who was the Deputy Mayor appeared at the scene and after same time they were taken inky custody and sent tv the police station and, therefore, Mannan Mallick can be held responsible for subsequent vigler 12, Section 1O8 ef the Indian Penal Cede defines the expressicn x "Abetior". The abetment ofa thing which is described under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code can take place in three marmers: first by instigation ta iy person to do that thing; ar engage with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if am act or Hegal omission fakes place in pursuance of that conspiracy or in order to the doing of that thing; or intentionally aids, by amy act or Ulegal omission, the doing af that thing. Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if there is 2 Se Beriios HO SXPrEss provision made in the Cade for punishment of an act abetted the abettor shall be punished in the same manner as if he has committed the main offence.
i3. 'The allegation against Mannan Mallick is that he gave provocative apeech as a result of which 3-4 thousand persons became violent and again slanted pelting stone. The complainant records that he had to AMAT ISsue warring through loudspeaker to disperse the mob, however, when the efforts did not sacesed Mannan Mallick and Nirai Mingh were arrested. ft appears that the agitation continued and about 8-10 thousand persons pelted stones, destroyed government vehicles and attacked the gevernment and police personnel. The situation became so violent thai 63 rounds of fring was resorted to by the police © personnel. Sri Ru S. Mazumdar, the learned senor counsel, has pointed oul that the. adeged firing made: by the moh about which a roference is made i in the written complaint had come tron mm the other side. | think this w ould make bo difference as regards involy mement and Hability of the petitioners in the incident [42 Sri RUS. Mazumdar, the le arned seer counse!, has refen 'ed tot the " March 2013) An. applic ation vide LA (Cr) No.6488 of 2018 has also boon led for calling for the report oa CoMmugHgs sioner, Hazaribag, Bos . From the materis ils sm recard inch lading g the letter dated 30° March 203, it become 28 clear that a ary Ving ny WAS conducted pursuant to an order x nassed by this 'Hon' ble { Sort ay AW. P {PLL No. 1783 af 2001. The reports i hy the authorities, as would appear from the materials on reoord, was that there was no order for eviction of [8 houses which were alsa included in the encroachments drive. The ploa taken by the accused is that the entire operation carried out by the district administration was Hlegal, But for this reason their plea that they were not invelved in the eccurrence cannat be accemed,
18. i find that several accused were arrested from the hospital where the ey were being treated for injuries suffered in the occurrence; there are spate allegations against several accused and; defence put forth by the petitioner:
is poima-facie untenable.
Vf As regards the petiiioner in Criminal Revision No.j S28 of 2016 f would just indicate that section I4{ of the Indian Penal Code which " Jt Revising Ne. £23? av 3076 & senalopees anaters ee defines unlawful assembly provides that assembly of five ar more persons, ¥ iP the object of the assembly was to do an Hlegal act or an act by egal means, shall he designated as unlawful assembly, Section [46 defines rioting to mean that wherever force or violence is used by an unlawful ny. af Oy any member thercef, i prosecution af the sonunean object very member of such assembly is guilty of the offence af rioting. Seetion 148 of the Indian Penal i Cede is also in the sarne terms ~ which makes eve avy member of the unlawful assem pga sly Hable for the act of one or the other The second part of sevtion 149 of the Indian Penal Code further makes it clear that any overt act | yy every member of the unlawtal assembly is pot) Necessary and mere knowles dge that common object of the ulficient ta. fasten crimina! roa ul assembly was the act ac complished is ability upon each ace US ed. The pe etitioners | in Criminal Revision No, 1238 of 2016 and Criminal Revi ision. No. Ti76 af 2016 had gone to the place eos where nore than 2000 pers sons had assembled and one of them delivered 4 prey ocalive soeech which according to the praseeution insti gated the meb and they again started pelting st one, Insofar as the role of Arbind Kumar a 5 Singh who is the petitioner in. Criminal Revision Nai Ss 3 concemed, if cannot be belie ved the i in such a violent situation he was a Y x passer by Ory Hust an onlooker.
of Vs LX, it beens SWE settled th at a the stage of framing of charge the Court is not penmitted to make 4 row ing inquiry or sifl the idence so as to find whethe te evidence is sufeient for conviction, rather the test is whether ¢ prima-
facie case as all eped by the prosecution is made out against the aceused.
i iy wid Remenbrancer of Legal Affairy vo Anil Kies i? fsasxyt ~ 8 Fo} 4 Te. + Ne .
aun 29 F8) g Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as ewes af the sfase of framing Bed nat yee cosenenved The x neider fhe above question an a general "Ee materials 'place @ before bia iy ihe lavestineating MRIS MORE. Aas wax Paiviesd cre bye nes Cone in State ay i Si igh the irate veracity paid ¢ a tos 2 2 .
"fe SY FORT ak 7 PSA Ww, wits ON ON Fe fe «oped S incing the accused guilty OF alherwise, is ¢ in be ar 228 of the Cute of "Chim ueuel AAS SURE. EVEN a verp Aone suspicion founded " Seetian 22° wed toe which feads Aisi ta form « ) 'f x i aefuel iperediands z Seed hs ediesed, may puaup fe fren ine ay charge ed GREAT the a ace sasedd in PESpecs iat 'ibe couneHssion ay ite ioffence a 20, In Sdaton Resurfacing af Road Agency (P) Lido vw CRI? (2018) 16 SOC 290 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "oonsideration of the challenge against an order of framing charge may not require maticulous examination of voluminous material which may be in the nature of a mim tral"
* 24 In view of the aforesaid discussions, | do net find any Hlegality im the arder dated O18 August 2016 passed in $.T) Case No.d45 of 2012 and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No, 1239 of 2016, Crimi inal Revision Noli 76 of 2016. and Criminal Revision No. {528 of 2016 are dismissed.
22... The interim order dated . 06% § ptember 2016 passed » Crmimal s 1176 af 2 O16 and sic order dated 28° N November 2016 ese Bes Jin LAL (Cr) No.7885 of 2016 8 30 t 6: are Vacated.
a3 The learned trial Court shall proceed in the matter m accordance w . 24, The petitioners shall appear before the Court concerned on 128 Novernber 2021.
ecaricerned through ya Fag aly we ek ba arder ke Feamarriit
2. Let avopy ofthe order be transis FAR, Self (Shree Chandrashekharnd)