Jharkhand High Court
Khiru Khatik And Ors vs Ashok Kumar Singh And Anr on 11 February, 2015
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2475 of 2012
---
1.Khiru Khatik @ Kheetu Khatik
2.Gulab Khatik
3.Pyare Khatik @ Pyare Lal Khatik
4.Sudama Khatik
all four sons of Late Ram Prasad Khatik
5.Parmeshwar Sonkar
6.Ishwar Sonkar @ Ishwar Khatik
7.Raj Kumar Sonkar @ Raj Kumar Khatik
8.Prakash Sonkar
all four sons of Gulab Khatik all residents of
Gandhinagar, Bhatia Shiv Mandir, PO & PS Dhansar,
District Dhanbad ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1.Ashok Kumar Singh
2.Uday Shankar Singh
Both sons of Sri Banke Bihari Singh
Both resident of Ghandhinagar, Sarkari Kuwa,
PO & PS Dhansar, District Dhanbad
3.The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioners : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 3 : Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.P.P.
---
5/11.02.2015Heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 & 2.
2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with M. P. Case No. 86 of 2012 by which the petitioners have been directed to furnish interim bond of Rs. 5,000/- as well as the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2012 in which the revision application was dismissed as being not maintainable.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the period prescribed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. has already come to an end as such, in such circumstances, the petitioners are not required to furnish interim bond as directed by the learned Executive Magistrate on 20.07.2012. She has further submitted that no reasons has been assigned by the learned Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad while issuing the order dated 20.07.2012 directing the petitioners to furnish interim bond.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 & 2, on the other hand, has stated that with respect to interim bond to be furnished by the petitioners, reasons are not necessary and the learned Executive Magistrate has rightly passed the order.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that on 20.07.2012, an order was passed by the learned Executive Magistrate directing the petitioners to furnish an interim bond of Rs. 5,000/-. This order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2012 which got dismissed as being not maintainable. In the first order dated 20.07.2012 on going through the same, I find that the same is with respect to furnishing of interim bond and no illegality has been committed by the learned Executive Magistrate while passing the said order. So far as the order dated 20.07.2012 is concerned, admittedly with respect to an order for furnishing interim bond, no revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the revision application of the petitioner by holding the same as not maintainable.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, I find that either in the order dated 20.07.2012 or in the order dated 09.10.2012 there is no illegality, so as to warrant interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3