Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 44-53]Binod Kumar Mishra vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 44 Sachindra Singh @ Sacha @ Sachchi Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 45 Julekha Khatoon v. The State Of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 46Sudhir Narayan vs. the State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 47 Md. Ramjani Vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha)...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 44-53]
Binod Kumar Mishra vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 44
Sachindra Singh @ Sacha @ Sachchi Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 45
Julekha Khatoon v. The State Of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 46
Sudhir Narayan vs. the State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 47
Md. Ramjani Vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 48
Suresh Prasad Vs The State of Jharkhan 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 49
Raghubansh Prasad Singh and Ors vs. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 50
Rahul Gandhi vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 51
Bhavesh Kant Jha vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 52
Jumed Khan vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 53
Judgements/Orders This Week
Case Title: Binod Kumar Mishra vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 44
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court while granting permission for the submission of additional documentary evidence in a case pertaining to the dishonour of a cheque ruled that while Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) does not explicitly address the addition of documentary evidence when read in conjunction with Section 91, additional documentary evidence can be submitted to ensure a fair trial and reach a just decision even after the conclusion of evidence.
Section 376 IPC | Minor's Consent Not Ground To Absolve Accused: Jharkhand High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Sachindra Singh @ Sacha @ Sachchi Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 45
The Jharkhand High Court while affirming a judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and sentence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, has observed that despite the victim being a consenting party and engaging in a sexual relationship leading to her pregnancy over several months, the accused cannot be absolved of guilt solely based on her consent as she was a minor.
Case Title: Julekha Khatoon v. The State Of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 46
The Jharkhand High Court has emphasized that when issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the court must record its satisfaction regarding whether the accused is absconding or concealing themselves to evade arrest.
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that the orders issued by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), which included a non-bailable warrant, a proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., and an attachment order of the petitioner's property under Section 83 of Cr.P.C., were legally unsustainable.
Case Title: Sudhir Narayan vs. the State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 47
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the conditions to be imposed while granting bail must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. The Court stressed that conditions should aim to ensure the accused's appearance before authorities, unhindered trial proceedings, and community safety.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “The conditions to be imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. In the context of grant of bail, all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer/ Court, unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance. However, inclusion of a condition for payment of money for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail.”
Case Title: Md. Ramjani Vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 48
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized that gravity of offence cannot be the ground to deny the bail application of a juvenile, unless there are exceptional circumstances as provided in the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Section 12 prescribes that a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer/ any fit person. The proviso states that the juvenile shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice. The JJ Board is further mandated to record the reasons and circumstances for denying bail.
Case Title: Suresh Prasad Vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 49
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that when the prosecution establishes the fundamental elements of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the court can assume the guilt of the accused, and consequently, under the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden shifts to the accused to challenge this presumption of guilt and demonstrate their innocence.
Justices Ratnaker Bhengra and Ambuj Nath observed, “The provision of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 manifests the intention of legislature making mandatory application on the part of the Court to presume that death has been committed by a person who had subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Once the basic ingredient of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is proved by the prosecution then the Court will presume the guilt of the accused. At this stage, the burden shift upon the accused as per the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to rebut this presumption of guilt and to prove his innocence.”
Case Title: Raghubansh Prasad Singh and Ors vs. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 50
After a lengthy legal battle spanning 21 years, the Jharkhand High Court has stayed further effect of a 2003 Resolution passed by the State government for providing reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in service promotions.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar allowed 12 writ petitions on finding the Resolution to be in non-compliance with Supreme Court guidelines.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 51
In relief to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Jharkhand High Court has stayed the non-bailable warrant issued against him by Chaibasa civil court on February 27 this year in a 2018 defamation case concerning his remarks on Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
Justice Rajesh Kumar presiding over the case, postponed the warrant for one month with a condition, directing Gandhi to take necessary legal measures before the trial.
Case Title: Jumed Khan vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 53
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has underscored the pivotal role of Investigating Officer in cases reliant on circumstantial evidence. The Court highlighted that failure to establish the evidence collected by the former Investigating Officer by the second Investigating Officer could prove fatal to the prosecution's case.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, “In this case, the first Investigating Officer, who investigated the whole of the case, has not been examined only the second Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.-6, Kiren Surin, who filed the charge-sheet relying upon the evidence collected by the former Investigating Officer. In case of circumstantial evidence, the examination of the Investigating Officer becomes very important. More so, the evidence, which has been collected by the former Investigating Officer has not been proved by the 2nd Investigating Officer, as such, the same becomes fatal to the prosecution case.”
Case Title: Bhavesh Kant Jha vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 52
The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State government to release 19 years of pending salary to an illegally terminated employee of its Department of Industries (Handloom, Resham and Sericulture).
The court reiterated that in cases where an employee is found to be entirely blameless, yet subjected to illegal termination motivated by malice, it would be unjust to deny them the benefits of employment they rightfully deserve.
Other Developments
In a recent hearing at the Jharkhand High Court, a case spanning over four decades has taken center stage, highlighting the plight of a petitioner who has been denied the fruits of a favourable court decree in relation to a land dispute.
In this backdrop, Justice Ananada Sen presiding over the case recollected the recent concerns raised by President of India Droupadi Murmu on the issue of enforcement of decrees.