Patna High Court – Orders
Rafiqul Islam vs The State Of Bihar on 24 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.71 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2019 Thana- SC/ST District- Kishanganj
======================================================
1. Rafiqul Islam S/O Abdul Hakim R/o - Mohiuddinpur, Patharbasti, P.S And
District - Kishanganj, Pin - 855107. At Present Ward No.13, Ghoramora,
Chakla, Kishanganj, District - Kishanganj, Pin - 855107
2. Ful Begum @ Phulwaa Wife of Rafiqul Islam R/o - Mohiuddinpur,
Patharbasti, P.S And District - Kishanganj, Pin - 855107. At Present Ward
No.13, Ghoramora, Chakla, Kishanganj, District - Kishanganj, Pin - 855107
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dinesh Ram Son of Shri Parmeshwar Ram R/o- Motibagh, Ward No.-07,
P.S.and Distt.-Kishanganj, Pin Code-855107.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2025
The petitioners are accused persons in connection
with Kishanganj ST/SC P.S. Case No. 05/2019 registered under
Section 420/406/409/341/323/504/506/34 of the IPC and
Section 138 of the N.I. Act and Section 3(1)(e)(R)(s) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. In the said case, the accused persons/petitioners were
granted bail on the condition that the petitioners would deposit
the first installment of Rs. 30,000/- within 15 days from the date
of the order, i.e., from 10th February, 2020, and the rest of the
amount of Rs. 60,000/- in two installments within 45 days from
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.71 of 2025(3) dt.24-06-2025
2/4
the date of the first installment. It is pertinent to mention here
that the said amount of Rs. 90,000/- is the cheque amount which
was allegedly accepted by petitioners, and they subsequently
failed to honour the said cheques. At the time of granting bail,
without considering the case of the parties, the bail court
directed the accused persons to pay the said amount of Rs.
90,000/- in three installments.
2. The I.O. did not know that no prosecution can be
launched in the form of a charge sheet under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act. The concerned judicial officer does not know that no
cognizance can be taken on a charge sheet on offense under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3. Learned Advocates, appearing in the trial court as
well as in this Court, do not know that the said order imposing a
condition for bail by payment of a cheque amount which was
allegedly dishonoured cannot be passed by the learned trial
judge. Surprisingly enough, the said order was not challenged
before this Court in Revision on behalf of the petitioners, but in
a subsequent order dated 22nd July 2024, it was challenged when
the petitioners were not permitted to be represented under
Section 317(1) of the CrPC on the ground that the accused
persons failed to make conditional payment for their bail. On
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.71 of 2025(3) dt.24-06-2025
3/4
20th November 2024, which order is also impugned in this case,
the learned Special Judge passed an order against the petitioner
no. 1 directing the officer-in-charge to execute process under
Section 83 of the CrPC, and if the said process is not executed,
necessary departmental action would be taken against him by
the Principal Secretary, Education Department.
4. I failed to understand as to whether such an order
can be passed in a criminal case directing the departmental
authority of a government employee to initiate departmental
proceedings under any of the provisions of Articles 309 to 311,
or any other statutory provision operating in this field. The
learned Special Judge does not know that the amount of
bounced cheque cannot be realised as a condition for bail. He
does not know that no departmental proceeding can be directed
in the manner as aforesaid against the accused, and he does not
know that no cognizance can be taken on the charge sheet under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act along with other penal provisions.
5. The learned Advocate on record on behalf of the
petitioners also does not know that any order passed by the
Special Judge under the SC/ST Act is appealable under Section
14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.71 of 2025(3) dt.24-06-2025
4/4
6. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that
the instant revision is not maintainable and, accordingly, is
summarily dismissed. Moreover, this Court is of the considered
view that this is a fit case to hold that the learned Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Kishanganj, namely, Shri Kumar Gunjan, does not
know the basic tenets of criminal law, and he does not have any
right to discharge his duties as an Additional Sessions Judge,
Kishanganj. This Court thinks it fit and proper to take away the
sessions power of the said learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The Registrar General, Hon’ble Patna High Court be informed
accordingly to pass necessary order immediately on the basis of
this judicial order, and the concerned judge be placed only in the
civil side to dispose of civil cases and appeals. Further, he
should also be under the scrutiny of the Hon’ble Patna High
Court, Administration about his judicial work for the next six
months.
7. With the above order, the instant revision is
disposed of.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Suraj Dubey/-
U T