Amit Kumar Das v. The State of Ap and Anr

ORDER Date : 16.02.2023 Heard Mr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶2The petitioner has preferred an application under Section 397/399/401/482 Cr.P.C., 1973, against the impugned order dated

14.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-Civil Judge, Yupia in connection with CB-PS Case No. 05 of 2022 (Corresponding G.R. No. 24/2022) under Section 120(B)/419/420/468/471/34 IPC.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case registered

against

the

present

petitioner

are

Section 120(B)/419/420/468/471/34 IPC and the punishment of which are 7(seven) years or below 7(seven) years for which, issue of notice under Section 41 A Cr.P.C. is mandatory as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar, reported in (2014) AIR (SC) 2756.

¶4Another contention argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a written complaint was filed by the complainant on 25.04.2022 and the same was received on 28.04.2022, whereas the F.I.R. was registered on

29.04.2022. There is no explanation regarding the delay of one day in registering the case, which is gross negligence as well as against the principles of law as enumerated in Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2008) 14 SCC 337. Page No.# 3/4

¶5On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the case of the Arnesh Kumar (Supra) is applicable in the case of the arrested person only and the instant case does not fall within the category of the case as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6It is also submitted that this is not the proper forum wherein, the petitioner has approached for relief. The petitioner may approach before the concerned Court for recalling of the warrant of arrest.

¶7I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

¶8The allegation against the present petitioner is that he has misappropriated huge amount of money of the complainant, for which, CB-PS Case No. 05 of 2022 was registered along with some other accused. The bail was granted to 2(two) other accused as reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner. While perusing the record that the pre-arrest bail of the present petitioner was rejected by this Court after perusal of the Case Diary. It transpires that the petitioner is evading arrest. He has not surrendered before the Court and as such, the prayer was made by the I/O to issue warrant of arrest and the Court had allowed the prayer of the I/O by issuing warrant of arrest against the present petitioner.

¶9The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach before the Court of JMFC, Yupia for recalling of the warrant of arrest.

¶10In view of the above, without further going to the merit of the case as well as any irregularity in the order passed by the learned JMFC, Yupia, the Page No.# 4/4 instant criminal petition is disposed of with a direction to the present petitioner to approach before the Court of the learned JMFC, Yupia for recalling of warrant of arrest. The criminal petition is disposed of with the above direction. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040012482022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn. 107/2022 1:Amit Kumar Das Son of Bateswar Das, Residing at Premises being no. L82/J, Mogal Bagan Rail Quarter. Narkeldanga Main Road, Narkeldanga, Kolkata 700011, West Bengal VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF AP and Anr. Represented by PP (AP) 2:Wokim Mungray Sub Inspector of Police Investigating Officer in CB PS Case No. 05/2022 CB PS (SIT) PHQ Itanagar 791111 Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Abhai Kumar Singh Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI