Jharkhand High Court
Mritunjay Kumar @ Dablu Mishra @ Dabloo ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:17102)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1433 of 2025
Mritunjay Kumar @ Dablu Mishra @ Dabloo Mishra @ Mritunjay Giri,
aged about 56 years, son of late Rampreet Giri, resident of
Koriribandh, Jharia, P.O. & P.S.-Jharia, Dist.-Dhanbad
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. .....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer for quashing the portion of the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No.48 of 2017 involving the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act; by which in a common order inter alia the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad has rejected a petition to call for the loan sanction letter from the Bank Manager of Utkarsh Small Finance Bank Ltd. Dalsingh Sarni Branch, Samastipur (Bihar).
1 Cr.M.P. No.1433 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:17102)
3. The undisputed fact remains that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 17990 of 2024, vide order dated 14.02.2025 has directed the trial court, being the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad, to conclude the trial within six months, from that date.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 17990 of 2024 has wrongly been mentioned as S.A. (Cr.) No. 17990 of 2024 in the last page of the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad.
5. The petitioner who is accused person of the said case, has taken the plea of alibi that at the time of occurrence, he was in Samastipur which is at a distance of 350 km and the document sought to be called for will establish his alibi hence, the petition was filed for calling of the said record.
6. The learned trial court considered that the petitioner has not filed any copy of any document to justify that there is any material which can aid the petitioner in his plea of alibi. The learned trial court also considered that the petition was filed in a vague manner without any supporting documents or pen drive or video recording showing his presence at Samastipur, on the date and time of occurrence. The trial court also observed that the petition has been filed without any merit as delaying tactics to linger the trial of the case and rejected the petition.
2 Cr.M.P. No.1433 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:17102)
7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of AnokhiLal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2019) 20 SCC 196, paragraph nos. 25 and 26 of which reads as under:-
"25. In V.K. Sasikala v. State [V.K. Sasikala v. State, (2012) 9 SCC 771 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1010] a caution was expressed by this Court as under : (SCC p. 790, para 23.4) "23.4. While the anxiety to bring the trial to its earliest conclusion has to be shared it is fundamental that in the process none of the well-entrenched principles of law that have been laboriously built by illuminating judicial precedents are sacrificed or compromised. In no circumstance, can the cause of justice be made to suffer, though, undoubtedly, it is highly desirable that the finality of any trial is achieved in the quickest possible time."
26. Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in criminal matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal, the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice."
and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that under no circumstances can the cause of justice be made to suffer, though, undoubtedly, it is highly desirable that the finality of any trial is achieved in the quickest possible time.
3 Cr.M.P. No.1433 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:17102)
8. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad, has hurriedly, in his over anxiety to conclude the trial within the time stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, not allowed the petition of the petitioner to call for the records of Utkrash Small Finance Bank Ltd., Samastipur (Bihar). It is also submitted that because of the rejection of the said petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to establish his alibi. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has not taken any specific plea that the document sought to be called for will go to show his presence at Samastipur. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that the sanction letter of the loan, with the Bank Manager sought to be called for by the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination can show the presence of the petitioner in Samstipur; because the borrower of a bank has no role in sanction of any loan granted in his favour. It is then submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that this is not a case, where even though the petition of the petitioner was having merit, the same was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad, in his over anxiety to conclude the trial at the earliest in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme 4 Cr.M.P. No.1433 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:17102) Court of India rather it is a case where the petition being without any merit has been dismissed and additionally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad, finding it relevant, has mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also directed to conclude the trial within the specified time, as already indicated above. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the sanction letter of a loan, sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, retained by a bank, can in no way show that the person in whose favour the bank loan was sanctioned was present at any particular place, on any particular time, because as has rightly been submitted at the Bar, that a borrower of a loan has no role in sanction of a loan.
11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it being a settled principle of law that a trial court can curtail the list of witnesses sought to be examined by the accused in his defence or even refuse to examine any particular witness or call for any document unless the same are relevant to the facts of the case and as considering the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad being satisfied that the document sought to be called for being the sanction letter of a loan with a bank manager is unnecessary and uncalled for and the same will not help him in establishing the plea of alibi of the petitioner, 5 Cr.M.P. No.1433 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:17102) rejected the same, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No.48 of 2017.
12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th June, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
6 Cr.M.P. No.1433 of 2025