KARAMJIT KUMAR SINGH ALIAS MANTU SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No.1441 of 2023
--------
Karamjit Kumar Singh @ Mantu Singh, aged about 29 years, son of
late Shiv Nandan Singh, resident of Village- Pathra, PO and PS
Imamganj, District-Gaya (Bihar). … ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anup Kumar Sinha, aged about 38 years, son of late Sri Girendra
Prasad, resident of Anru Garuwa, PO +PS- Hunterganj, District:
Chatra. … … Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, Advocate;
Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate
--------
st
Order No.13/Dated: 31 August, 2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present revision application has been filed against the order
dated 18.4.2023 by which discharge petition filed by the petitioner has
been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 05 of 2023, arising out of Hunterganj P.S.
Case No. 62 of 2013, registered for the offence under Sections 364
(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 17(i)(ii) of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act.
3. The case of prosecution as per informant, namely, Anup Kumar
Sinha is that on 13.6.2013 at about 09:00 p.m. he was at Shyamakant
Singh Stone Crusher and at the same time three persons arrived in a
tempo who were holding rifle and on the point of rifle they took away
the informant along with one Amit Kumar Sinha and Satyendra Singh
and after reaching about 7 k.m. the said tempo became breakdown and
due to which they took away them to Dalkoma Pahar on foot. It is
further alleged that thereafter the accused person took mobile number of
his master from his associates and demanded Rs., 10,00,000/- for
releasing the victims. In the morning they again talked with their master
and after half an hour they released them. Accordingly, the First
Information Report has been lodged against the accused persons. On
1.
2026:JHHC:26147
the basis of which Hunterganj PS case no. 62 of 2013 was registered
under sections 364(A)/34 IPC and 17 (i) (ii) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act. Charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken
keeping investigation pending.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that the learned court below has failed to consider that in course of trial
the informant appeared and deposed before the trial court and completely
demolished the allegation levelled against the petitioner. It is further
submitted that on account of pressure exerted by the police the name of
the present petitioner has come in the First Information Report whereas
as a matter of fact at the time of alleged occurrence there was dark night
and it was not possible to identify anyone. It is further submitted that the
learned court below has failed to appreciate that in the instant case the
present petitioner was not apprehended and police party could not be
able to make him prey of false allegation and thus the petitioner could
not participate the protracted rigour of trial. The entire allegation has
been built up by the police party and thus it is a fit case to discharge the
petitioner.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party
no.2 and the learned counsel appearing for the State have jointly
submitted that petitioner has never appeared before the concerned court
and, as such, he has flouted the stage of appearance.
6. It appears that present petitioner is named accused in the
Hunterganj P.S. Case No.62 of 2013 dated 14.6.2013 registered for the
offence under sections 364(A) r/w 34 IPC and 17 (i) (ii) of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act. During investigation, the petitioner was evading
his arrest, therefore, process under sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. were issued
against him. Thereafter, supplementary charge-sheet no. 241 of 2019
dated 31.12.2019 was submitted showing the present petitioner as
absconder. The cognizance of offence was already taken by the
concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the submission of original charge
sheet vide order dated 04.11.2013. The case record was kept in the
personal file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra for
commitment of the case. It further appears that in the meantime the
2
2026:JHHC:26147
learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra vide order dated
27.2.2020 has observed that a fax copy of order no. 04 dated 10.2.2020
passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 60 of 2020 has been received
whereby processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. issued against the
petitioner were set-aside and the matter was remanded to the concerned
court to proceed afresh and pass order in accordance with law. It further
appears that ABA No. 4897 of 2019 was also rejected by this Court vide
order dated 3.8.2021. The petitioner has also filed Cr.M.P. 2755 of 2021
for quashing of the FIR of this case which was withdrawn by the
petitioner and, thus, the same was disposed of vide order dated
26.4.2022 with liberty to the petitioner to take all grounds at appropriate
stage.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that a report was called for from the
Sessions Judge, Chatra as to what steps have been taken after rejection
of discharge petition filed by the petitioner. In compliance of the above
order, a report has been submitted by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Chatra vide letter no. 942 of 2026 along with the report
submitted by the concerned Judicial Magistrate which reveals that the
case of the petitioner has still not been committed to the court of
Sessions and Sessions Trial case has not been registered as yet.
Therefore, no question of filing of discharge petition arises.
8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner simply
filed discharge application under section 227 Cr.P.C. vide Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 05 of 2023 (CNR No. JHCH010015622023)
directly before the Sessions Judge which was rejected vide impugned
order dated 18.4.2023 after hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
9. In the above background, it is crystal clear that in-spite of
rejection of anticipatory bail of the petitioner up to this Court, he has
not surrendered before the concerned court and has not been granted
bail from any court. The petitioner has filed petition under section 227
Cr.P.C. directly before the Sessions Court which has been illegally
heard and disposed of without following the procedure established by
the law and, thus, the learned Sessions Judge has exceeded his
3
2026:JHHC:26147
jurisdiction.
10. In view of above, the impugned order dated 18.4.2023 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
No. 05 of 2023, arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 62 of 2013 is
hereby set-aside.
11. The case is still at the stage of appearance before the learned
st
Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Chatra. Therefore, the petitioner is
directed to appear before the concerned trial court and after
commitment of the case, he may make further prayer in accordance with
law, if so advised.
12. The present Criminal Revision stands disposed of.
13. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
14. Let a copy of this order along with Trial Court Records (if
any) be sent back to the court concerned for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Dated:31.08.2026
KNR
Uploaded on:2.9.2026
4