Jitender Kumar @Jitender Singh vs The State Of Bihar

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 888 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3502 of 2019)

Jitender Kumar @ Jitender Singh ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of Bihar ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final

judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.05.10 Miscellaneous No.5293 of 2019 whereby the High 17:31:06 IST Reason: 1 1 Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant

herein.

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.

4. By impugned order, the High Court (Single

Judge) dismissed the petition filed by the appellant

herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.) and, in

consequence, affirmed the order dated 09.04.2015

passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in

connection with P.S. Case No.154 of 2013 whereby

the appellant along was summoned to face Session

Trial No.280 of 2016 pending in the Court of First

Additional & Sessions Judge, Jamui for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 325, 326, 331, 352

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short, “IPC”).

2 2

5. The short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal, is whether the High

Court was right in dismissing the appellant's

petition.

6. Heard Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned senior

counsel for the appellant and Ms. Hemlata Ranga,

learned counsel for the respondent­State.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow this appeal, set aside the

impugned order and remand the case to the High

Court (Single Judge) for deciding the appellant's

petition afresh on merits in accordance with law.

8. The need to remand the case to the High Court

has occasioned because on perusal of the impugned

order, we find that paras 1 to 4 contain facts of the

case, paras 5 and 6 contain the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties, paras 7 to 9 refer to

3 3 what transpired in the Trial Court, paras 10 and 11

contain quotation from two decisions of this Court

and para 12 contains the conclusion, which reads

as under:

“12. After giving analytical thought to the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is found devoid of merit, consequent thereupon is dismissed.”

9. In the entire impugned order, which consists

of 13 paras, we find that the High Court did not

assign any reason as to why the petition is liable to

be dismissed. In other words, neither there is any

discussion and nor the reasoning on the

submissions urged by the learned counsel for the

parties.

10. In our view, such approach of the High Court

while disposing of the petition cannot be

countenanced. Time and again, this Court has

emphasized the necessity of giving reasons in

4 4 support of the conclusion because it is the reason,

which indicates the application of mind. It is,

therefore, obligatory for the Court to assign the

reasons as to why the petition is allowed or rejected,

as the case may be.

11. As mentioned above, para 12 only records the

conclusion. It is for this reason, we feel that the

matter must go back to the High Court for deciding

the petition afresh on merits in accordance with

law.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal

succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned

order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the

High Court for deciding the petition, out of which

this appeal arises, afresh on merits in accordance

with law keeping in view the observations made

above.

5 5

13. We, however, make it clear that we have not

expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues

arising in the case having formed an opinion to

remand the case to the High Court for deciding it

afresh on the ground mentioned above. The High

Court will, therefore, decide the matter on its merits

uninfluenced by any of our observations made in

this order.

14. The parties are granted liberty to mention the

matter in the High Court for its early hearing.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

....……..................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi;

May 10, 2019.

6 6