- (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing State and on perusal of the record, it does appear that without there being any report, regarding execution of the warrant of arrest or any report regarding execution of the processes either under Section 82 or even under Section 83 Cr. P.C., an order has been passed on 20.10.2012 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Chirkunda (Maithon) P.S. Case No.181 of 1998, whereby, the petitioner was declared absconder and at the same time, permanent warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner.
(2.) IN such situation, order dated 20.10.2012 certainly suffers from illegality and hence, it is set aside. Accordingly, this application stands allowed. However, the petitioner is directed to appear before the court below within two weeks from today, failing which it would be open for the court to take all the coercive action against the petitioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. One Meharma P.S. Case No.153 of 2002 was registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the other accused persons not against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was made accused on the basis of the observation made in the supervision note. When the petitioner was made accused, he moved for bail and was granted anticipatory bail on 07.03.2003. Much thereafter, charge sheet was submitted on 31.11.2007, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken on 23.01.2008 and then on 01.03.2008, summon was ordered to be issued against the petitioner. Without there being any service report, warrant of arrest bailable was ordered to be issued on 23.06.2008 and then warrant of arrest non-bailable on 16.03.2009. Similarly, without there being any report, regarding execution of the warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and then process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be issued vide order dated 12.05.2009 and 05.08.2009 respectively. On these facts stated above, get reflected from the charge sheet annexed with this application. Thus, it is evident that without there being any service report of summon, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued and subsequently, without there being any report, regarding execution of the warrant, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be issued and, thereby, the court committed illegality.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the order dated 16.03.2009, 12.05.2009 and;