IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 286 of 2024

1. Kapil Raj
2. Deovrat Jha
3. Anupam Kumar
4. Aman Patel … Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Hemant Soren … Opp. Parties

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners : Mr. S.V. Raju, Addl. SGI

Mr. Z. Hossain, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Adv.
Mr. S. Gaurav Piyush, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Dubey, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. PP.
Mr. Achyut Keshav, Adv.
For the Opp. party no. 2 : Ms. Meenakshi Arora , Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shubham Gautam, Adv.

05 / 21.03.2024 I.A. No. 2877 of 2024

Heard the parties. Heard Mr. S.V. Raju, the Additional
Solicitor General of India, Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Senior
Advocate and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate through
video conferencing.
This interlocutory application has been filed by the
petitioners contending therein that in CrMP No. 286 of 2024, which
was filed with the prayer for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding, including the FIR of ST/SC P.S. case no. 06 of 2024 , this
Court vide order dated 04.03.2024 passed an order directing the opp.
party no. 1, not to take any coercive steps against the four petitioners
of this case, till the next date of listing of this case, in connection
with the ST/SC P.S. case no. 06 of 2024, which is pending in the
court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Ranchi, but even then,
the Investigating Officer of the instant case, only to create parallel
evidence and tamper with the evidences which are being collected
by the Directorate of Enforcement, has been issuing notices under
Section 41A of the CrPC and trying to terrorize the witnesses of the
case. It is further contended in the interlocutory application that the
Investigating Officer has gone to the extent of issuing notices under
Section 41A of the CrPC to the petitioners also by describing the
facts in detail in a distorted manner which indicates that the
Investigating Officer in a pre-determined manner, in order to harass
the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement, for having arrested
opp. party no. 2, bent upon tampering with the evidence against the
opp. party no. 2, issuing such notices. It is next submitted that the
notices under Section 41A of the CrPC were issued by the opp. party
no. 1 to create hindrance in the ongoing investigation under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and also to harass the
petitioners, who are the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement
and presently investigating the ECIR No. RNZO/25/2023.
It is further contended that earlier instances of creating parallel
evidences to frustrate the evidences linked with the opp. party no. 2
have also surfaced during investigation where the land in his
possession was restored to his associates namely Raj Kumar Pahan
and others vide order dated 29.01.2024 and searches were
continuing at premises under use and occupation of the opp. party
no. 2 by misusing his powers in the capacity of Chief Minister of
Jharkhand. It is also contended that the Opposite Party No. 1 has
intentionally issued notice to the petitioners even though this Court
observed that the petitioners were discharging their official duties
and there is a bar under Section 67 of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 in respect of prosecution or other proceedings
against any officer of the Government for anything done or intended
to be done in good faith under the provisions of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002.
It is submitted by learned Additional Solicitor General of India ,
Mr. S.V. Raju, that the notice under Section 41 A of the CrPC, is
precursor to the arrest of the petitioners. It is then submitted by Mr.
Raju, by drawing attention of the Court to the notice issued under
Section 41 A of the CrPC to the petitioners, the copy of which, has
been annexed as Annexure 4 series of this I.A. that therein, the
petitioners have been asked to remain present personally and the
same is a coercive step and the same is in utter violation of the said
order dated 04.03.2024 and is an act of contempt of this Court, hence,
it is submitted that the proceeding in respect of the FIR bearing
ST/SC P.S. case no. 06 of 2024 be stayed.
Learned senior counsel Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing
for the opp. party no. 1 submits that the opp. party no. 1 wants to
file reply to this interlocutory application and for that, he prays for
one week’s time.
Learned senior counsel Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing
for the opp. party no. 1 submits that the opp. party no. 1, has the
right to investigate the cognizable offence, in respect of which, First
Information Report involved in this case, has been registered and
there is no exception in this case, hence, no order of stay of the
further investigation of the case, be passed.
Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that Section 41 A (4) of the CrPC, which reads as under :-
“Section 41A – Notice of appearance before police officer-
1. Xxxxxx
2. Xxxxxx
3. Xxxxxx
4. Where such person, at any time, fails to comply
with the terms of the notice, it shall be lawful
for the police officer to arrest him for the offence
mentioned in the notice, subject to such orders
as may have been passed in this behalf by a
competent Court.”

empowers the police officer, who issues notice under Section

41A of the CrPC, where the person to whom, any notice is issued
under Section 41 A of the CrPC, fails to comply with the terms of the
notices or unwilling to identify himself.
This Court in no uncertain manner, vide order dated
04.03.2024, has directed the opp. party no. 1 not to take any coercive
step against the four petitioners of CrMP no. 286 of 2024 in
connection with ST/SC P.S. case no. 06 of 2024.
 This Court is of the considered opinion that it was not desirable
on the part of the opp. party no. 1 to issue any notice under Section
41 A of the CrPC, directing them to remain personally present before
the officer-in-charge, of Gonda Police Station, Ranchi in connection
with ST/SC P.S. case no. 06 of 2024. Hence, this Court stays the
operation of the notices issued under Section 41 A of the CrPC ,
against the four petitioners of this CrMP No. 286 of 2024, the copies
of which has been annexed as annexure- 4 series to this interlocutory
application, till the time, the order of no coercive step asked vide
order dated 04.03.2024, remains in force and further directs, the opp.
party no. 1 not to issue any further notice under Section 41 A of the
CrPC to the petitioners, till the next date of listing of this
interlocutory application.
List this interlocutory application after the reply is filed by the
State-opp. party no. 1.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

Cr.M.P. No. 286 of 2024

Learned counsel Mr. Shubham Gautam, files

vakalatnama on behalf of the opp. party no. 2, keep the same in
the record.
Learned senior counsel, Ms. Meenakshi Arora,
appearing on behalf of the opp. party no. 2, prays for three
weeks’ time to file counter affidavit in the present criminal
miscellaneous petition no. 286 of 2024.
Prayer for time is allowed.
Learned senior counsel Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan,
appearing for the opp. party no. 1, also prays for three weeks’
time to file counter affidavit.
List this case after three weeks.
The interim order of no coercive steps, passed earlier
vide order dated 04.03.2024, is extended till next date of listing
of this Cr.M.P. No. 286 of 2024.

AFR-Smita/- (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)