Deepak Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[r.v. raveendran; a. k. patnaik] indian penal code section 452 - house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- after investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the judicial magistrate, first class, ludhiana. after further investigation, the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, submitted his report to the deputy inspector general of police, ludhiana range. the relevant portion of the report of the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, which contains his conclusions after further investigation, is extracted herein below: "i found during my investigation that mohan singh, son of shri sher singh , dharmatma singh, harpal singh, jagdev singh and bhupinder singh, sons of mohan singh, residents of pullanwal, sold one plot of 1 kanal 13 marlas on 09.03.2004 to bharpur sigh, harnek singh, sons of balbir singh, jagjit singh, son of amarjit singh, gurcharan singh, son of hari dass and jagdev singh, son of harpal singh, resident of phulanawal through registered sale deed vasikha no.23895 and the mutation no.10940 duly entered in the name of purchasing party. for deciding the issue, we must first refer to the provisions of section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. 1. heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andlearned a.p.p. appearing for the state.the petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under section379 of indian penal code.2. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that sincethe petitioner was found in possession of stolen motorcar at patnarailway station, a case was registered under section 414 indianpenal code, in which petitioner has already been granted bail bypatna high court, but the petitioner has moved for bail before thiscourt as he has been made an accused in a case registered undersection 379 of the indian penal code for theft of the said car, butthere has been absolutely no material to show that the petitioner hadhad any role to play in the commission of offence of theft.regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case,the above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail onfurnishing bail bond of rs. 10000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned chief judicial magistrate, koderma, in connection with jai nagar p.s. case no. 74 of 2010 corresponding to g.r. no. 486 of 2010.

Judgment:
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in a case instituted under Section

379 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since

the petitioner was found in possession of stolen motorcar at Patna

Railway Station, a case was registered under Section 414 Indian

Penal Code, in which petitioner has already been granted bail by

Patna High Court, but the petitioner has moved for bail before this

Court as he has been made an accused in a case registered under

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code for theft of the said car, but

there has been absolutely no material to show that the petitioner had

had any role to play in the commission of offence of theft.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case,

the above named Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on

Furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10000/(

Ten Thousand) with two Sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, in connection with Jai Nagar P.S. Case No. 74 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 486 of 2010.