Jharkhand High Court Weekly Roundup: April 29 - May 5, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 64-71]

Anvil Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 64

Bapi Namta @ Baapi Namta v. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 65

Munna Sao v. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 66

Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 67

Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 68

K. Kannan and Anr vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 69

Deepak Dokania vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 71

Judgements/Orders This Week

Unjust Retention Of Money Or Property Of Another Is Against Fundamental Principles And Patently Illegal: Jharkhand HC Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Penalty On JBVNL, Directs Board To Refund TDS

Case Title: Anvil Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 64

The Jharkhand High Court has held that any unjust withholding of money or property from another party goes against the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and good conscience. In this context, the unauthorized deductions made from the ongoing bills are unquestionably unlawful.

Furthermore, the Court has imposed a substantial penalty of Rs 5 Lacs on the Managing Director of Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) for engaging in unnecessary litigation and presenting frivolous defenses.

[Kidnapping] No Conviction Possible U/S 364A IPC Sans Evidence Suggesting Application Of Force Or Adoption Of Deceitful Means By Accused: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Bapi Namta @ Baapi Namta v. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 65

The Jharkhand High Court has overturned the conviction of an accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any deceitful means or inducement by the accused that compelled the deceased to relocate.

The Court emphasized that in the absence of foundational elements, an accused cannot be found guilty under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

Taking Or Enticing Minor Out Of Guardian's Keeping Without Their Consent Amounts To Kidnapping; Minor's Consent Immaterial: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Munna Sao v. State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 66

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that escorting a minor girl to different places constitutes enticing, thus resulting in a conviction for kidnapping under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. It held that regardless of the minor's consent, taking or enticing the minor without their guardians consent would tantamount to kidnapping.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the bench, set aside the conviction under Section 366A for procuration, but instead convicted the appellants under Section 363 for kidnapping.

Jharkhand HC Allows Ex-CM Hemant Soren To Attend Uncle's Last Rites In Police Custody, Rejects Interim Bail Plea

Case Title: Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 67

Today, the Jharkhand High Court rejected the interim bail plea of former Chief Minister Hemant Soren, who is currently in jail. However, the High Court has granted him permission to participate in the last rites ceremonies of his late uncle, Raja Ram Soren.

In his application, Soren prayed for grant of provisional bail in connection with an ECIR Case registered under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on account of the demise of his uncle whose last rites will take place at village Nemra, Gola, District Ramgarh.

'Can't Wriggle Out Of Mess By Citing Political Vendetta': Jharkhand HC Dismisses Hemant Soren's Plea Against ED Arrest

Case Title: Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 68

The Jharkhand High Court, in its dismissal of the writ petition filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Land 'Scam' case, asserted that he “cannot wriggle out of the mess he created for himself” by raising “bogey of political vendetta.”

The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar, while rejecting Soren's plea, observed, "The recovery of huge cash from his Delhi residence is not denied by the petitioner and the excuse of the illness of his parents for keeping more than 36 lacs in cash prima facie looks untenable. In this state of affairs, by raising a technical plea the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the mess he created for himself. Like the last resort to a losing litigant, an anxious petitioner has raised the bogey of political vendetta."

Limitation To File Complaints Under Factories Act Is Strictly 3 Months, There Is No Provision For Condonation: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: K. Kannan and Anr vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 69

The Jharkhand High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the period of limitation under the Factories Act is strictly 3 months from either the date of the offence or the date on which the occurrence came to the Inspector's knowledge. Further, there exists no provision for the condonation of delay for the filing of such complaints.

It was also observed that the Judicial Magistrate did not apply his judicial discretion appropriately after taking cognizance of the matter. Consequently, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the occupiers of a factory.

Management Not Responsible For Accident If Workman Does Not Utilize Provided Safety Equipment: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Deepak Dokania vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

The Jharkhand High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the Management could not be held responsible for the accident of a Workman in the factory premises if despite providing the safety equipment, the Workman fails to utilize it.

Pensionary Benefit Earned On Account Of Meritorious Past Services, Is A Constitutional Right Of An Employee Under Article 300-A Of The Constitution: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 71

A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. and Navneet Kumar, J., while deciding Letters Patent Appeals in the case of Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand, has held that denying pensionary benefits to an employee is to rob them of a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution, as pension is earned by the employee on account of their meritorious past services.

Other Developments

Jharkhand High Court Orders Constitution Of Transgender Welfare Board In Two Weeks, Says Pending Since 5 Years

The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State government to expedite the constitution of a Transgender Welfare Board, emphasizing the importance of addressing the needs of the transgender community.

The directive came in response to a counter affidavit filed by the State highlighting various beneficial actions taken for the welfare of transgender individuals.

However, the court noted that despite the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2019 five years ago, the constitution of the Welfare Board remains pending.

Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Ex-CM Hemant Soren's Plea Against ED Arrest In Land 'Scam' Case

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed former State Chief Minister Hemant Soren's plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the land scam case. A detailed order is awaited.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar rejected his plea 4 days after the Supreme Court, posting Soren's plea against ED Arrest in the week commencing from May 6, stated that it would be open to the High Court to pronounce the judgment in the matter.