- (1.)THE present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an order dated 22.06.2013, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 153 (A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code including an order dated 19.05.2014, whereby bail of the petitioner has been cancelled both passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in G.R. No. 1941 of 2006 arising out of Jugsalai PS Case No.183 of 2006, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.
(2.)AT the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not press the first part of the prayer i.e. with regard to quashing of the order dated 22.06.2013 with a liberty to file an appropriate application permissible under the law before the learned court below.
(3.)SO far as the second part of the prayer is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner was enlarged on bail as per the order passed on 29.05.2008 and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted on 31st March, 2012 under Section 153 (A) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against nine accused persons including the present petitioner and cognizance was taken on 22.06.2013 and the office was directed to issue summons. Thereafter, without receiving any service report of the summons, the learned court below issued bailable warrant of arrest on 20th September, 2013 and without awaiting the execution report thereof, the learned court below issued non -bailable warrant of arrest vide order dated 19.05.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 19.05.2014 is bad in law as the learned court below without following due process of law passed the said order in a mechanical way. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision given in the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasinversus -State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2011 4 JL JR 385 as well as on the decision given in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another -versus -State of Uttaranchal and others , 2007 12 SCC 1.
The learned counsel for the State while opposing this petition, tried to justify the order dated 19.05.2014 and submitted that since thepetitioner did not remain present before the learned court below, the order regarding non -bailable warrant was issued by the court below so as to secure his presence, so that trial can commence further.