Jharkhand High Court
Ratish Kumar Jha @ Ritesh Kumar Jha vs State Of Jharkhand Through A.C.B on 11 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1261 of 2025
---------------
Ratish Kumar Jha @ Ritesh Kumar Jha, aged about 49 years, son of late
Visheshwar Jha, resident of Pokhar Bhinda, PO-Pokhar, PS-Sakatraipur,
District-Darbhanga, State-Bihar ………….Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through A.C.B, Vigilance …… Opp. Party
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate
For the OP-State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.PP
————
th
Order No.3/Dated: 11 July, 2025
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section
528 of BNSS, 2023 corresponding to section 482 of Cr.P.C for the
following reliefs:
(i) For quashing the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by learned
Special Judge (ACB), Dumka in connection with Vigilance
Case No. 24 of 2003 arising out of Vigilance PS Case No.22
of 2003 lodged under section 409, 420, 468, 467, 471, 477 A,
120B of the IPC and section 13(1) (d) (i) (ii) and 13(2) of PC
Act whereby learned Court has directed to issue bailable
warrant against the petitioner and others, now pending in the
Court of learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka;
(ii) For quashing the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by learned
Special Judge (ACB), Dumka in connection with Vigilance
Case No. 24 of 2003, whereby the learned Court has issued
NBW against the petitioner and others, now pending in the
court of learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka;
(iii) For quashing the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by learned
Special Judge (ACB), Dumka in connection with Vigilance
Case No. 24 of 2003, whereby the learned Special Judge
(ACB), Dumka has issued process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
against the petitioner and others, now pending in the Court of
learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka; and
2
(iv) For quashing the order dated 26.05.2023/23.06.2023 passed
by learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka in connection with
Vigilance Case No. 24 of 2003, whereby the learned Court has
again issued fresh NBW against the petitioner and others, now
pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka;
2. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Nishant
Kumar Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
contended that the anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the
petitioner vide order dated 19.03.2024 passed in A.B.A No.184 of 2004
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the charge sheet was
submitted in that case on 12.07.2010, i.e., after lapse of seven years.
Thereafter, the case was transferred to the jurisdiction to the Criminal
Court at Dumka, i.e. the Court of learned Spl. Judge (Vigilance),
Dumka vide order dated 02.01.2013. It has been contended that the
petitioner was having no knowledge about the transfer of the said case
to the Court at Dumka. However, the summons has been issued by the
Court at Dumka, i.e., the learned Special Judge (ACB), Dumka, but the
said summons has not been served upon the petitioner since there is no
service report in this regard. Thereafter, repeatedly, fresh non-bailable
warrant of arrest (NBWs) have been issued against the petitioner.
Again, the process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued.
3. Therefore, the ground has been agitated that when the summons has not
been served upon the petitioner, then it cannot be said to be just and
proper to issue NBWs repeatedly by issuing the process under section
82 Cr.P.C twice. The fact about non-service of notice upon the
petitioner has been supported by the copy of the entire order sheets
which have been annexed along with supplementary affidavit filed on
behalf of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner in the backdrop of the aforesaid fact has filed the present
petition praying therein for quashing of the aforesaid orders.
5. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, the learned Spl.P.P appearing for the
State, however, has sought for adjournment to seek instruction, but after
going through the photo copy of the aforesaid orders, he is not in a
position to dispute the fact about non-service of notice upon the
petitioner.
3
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has sought for three weeks’
time to file a counter-affidavit.
7. Time, as prayed for, is granted.
8. It has been contended that without cancelling his bail-bonds the
learned trial Court vide order dated 02.08.2018 has ordered to issue
process under section 82 Cr.P.C against the petitioner and others.
9. It is evident that the petitioner since was granted privilege of
anticipatory bail vide order dated 19.03.2004 passed in A.B.A No.184
of 2004 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is also evident that the
summons has been issued after the case having been transferred to the
Court of the learned Spl. Judge (ACB), Dumka, but after the order
dated 19.04.2017, the service of summons is not found to be affected
upon the petitioner. The petitioner is facing the rigour of the issuance of
NBWs as also the process issued under section 82 Cr.P.C.
10.In view of the above, this Court, therefore, is of the view that if the
interest of the petitioner will not be protected, then it will amount to
miscarriage of justice.
11. Accordingly, the orders dated 30.11.2016, 19.04.2017, 02.08.2018 and
orders dated 26.05.2023/23.06.2023 for issuance of NBWs and
issuance of the process under section 82 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner
in connection with Vigilance Case No. 24 of 2003 arising out of
Vigilance PS Case No.22 of 2003 are being kept in abeyance till the
next date of hearing.
12. Let this matter be listed on 22.08.2025.
13. Let a copy of the order be communicated to the learned trial Court
forthwith.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
sudhir