Supreme Court Summons Jharkhand Home Secretary Over Repeated Instances Of Non-Apperance By State

The Supreme Court today reiterated its various concerns regarding the State of Jharkhand's failure to appear in the matters despite receiving notice of service. The Court has now directed the Home Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand to be present online tomorrow and give an explanation in this regard. It has also expressed surprise over the manner the Jharkhand High Court granted bail to the two co-accused persons charged with the allegations of murder, without any discussion as to its merit. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea for bail of the petitioner accused under 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of the Arms Act in connection with a 2018 case for having shot dead a person at the Daily Market Main Road Taxi stand. The petitioner, along with the two co-accused persons, were added as accused persons under Section 319 CrPC based on the deposition of the witnesses.On April 8, Justice Ambuj Nath of the Jharkhand High Court refused to enlarge him on bail by noting: "Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected."The petitioner's counsel today informed the Court that the two other co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail. On this, the Court asked why the State of Government was not appearing despite the notice. Justice Viswanathan orally remarked that this is a recurring issue with the State of Jharkhand, as even last week in a similar matter, the State did not appear. Justice Viswanathan was apparently referring to the November 10 order in which the same bench strongly criticised the Jharkhand High Court for granting bail to three individuals convicted of murder, noting that the High Court had passed a vague and unreasoned order merely stating that the allegations against them were “general and omnibus in nature." In that case, the Court had taken serious note of the Jharkhand government's absence from the proceedings, despite being served a notice. Further, the Court recorded surprise that the State did not challenge the suspension of sentence.Considering that such instances are being repeated, the Court ordered the presence of the State's Home Secretary: "This is the second matter on the Board today. The State of Jharkhand, over a period of time, is cutting a very sorry figure. In many cases, we have noticed that the State does not care to appear. When it appears, it is too late in the day. This matter is coming for the second time. Today also, no one is appearing for the State of Jharkhand. The matter before us is a bail application. The petitioner, along with two other accused, were added as accused persons in the trial in exercise of power under Section 319 of CrPC. We take notice of the fact that the police, on completion of the investigation, filed a report that the petitioner herein was nowhere involved in the alleged crime. When trial was in progress in respect of the other persons, three witnesses deposed about the complicity of the present petitioner along with two other accused in the alleged crime. The trial is in progress and the petitioner prayed for bail before the High Court of Jharkhand. The High Court, by a very cryptic order, has rejected the bail application. In such circumstances, the petitioner is here for bail before us.We are taken by surprise that the two co-accused were added along the present petitioner in exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. We have no idea in what circumstances anticipatory bail came to be granted to the other co-accused as noted above, there is no discussion worth the name in the order. Therefore, we are unable to understand what is the case against the present petitioner and what the overt act is attributed to the present petitioner. We don't have the advantage of hearing the State in this matter. No one entered an appearance despite service. We take a serious view of this matter. We direct the Home Secretary of State of Jharkhand to appear before us online tomorrow. Registry to inform about the order to the Home Secretary immediately."Recently, the Supreme Court expressed shock to learn that out of 61 civil cases where decisions were reserved by the Jharkhand High Court prior to January 31, 2025, judgments remain to be pronounced in 47 cases. In another matter, the Court noted the repeated failure of the State of Jharkhand to comply with its orders.Case Details: MD IMRAN @D.C. GUDDU v THE STATE OF JHARKHAND|SLP(Crl) No. 12110/2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Summons Jharkhand Home Secretary Over Repeated Instances Of Non-Apperance By State

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

"The State of Jharkhand, of late, has been cutting a very sorry figure," the Court stated in its order.

Tags