Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) ALL these four applications arising out of the same impugned order, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance.
(2.) THE order dated 09/07/2013, passed in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11/2009 (Special Case No. 15 of 2009) by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against these petitioners is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the same has been passed in complete disregard to the order passed by this Court on 21/03/2013, by which, the order under which warrant of arrest had been issued earlier, was quashed. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that earlier on a requisition submitted by the Investigating Officer, when an order was passed for issuance of warrant of arrest, it was challenged before this Court. This Court, having found the said order being not in consonance with the provisions as contained in Section 73 Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed that order. In spite of that the Investigating Officer submitted a fresh requisition before the Court below praying therein to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioners and others on the plea that they are evading arrest and in order to substantiate its plea references of the paragraphs of the case diary have been given, wherein the dates have been shown on which raids were laid for arresting the accused, but all those dates on which the Investigating Officer has claimed to have laid raids to apprehend the petitioners are prior to 21/03/2013, which never gives a fresh cause of action to the Investigating Officer to make prayer for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioners. In spite of that the Court has passed the order for issuance of warrant of arrest, which is quite illegal.
(3.) IT was further submitted that after the warrant of arrest, issued earlier, was quashed certain developments took place, which are sufficient enough to indicate that the petitioners have never been evading arrest. In this regard, it was pointed out that soon after the warrant of arrest, issued earlier, was quashed vide order dated 21/03/2013, the petitioners serving in the Directorate of Agriculture, joined the posts on 26/03/2013 and since then they have been discharging their duties. Not only that after giving joining, the petitioners did inform to the concerned Secretaries about their willingness to cooperate in investigation, copy of which was also made available to the Vigilance Department. Thereupon, under the order of the S.P., Vigilance, departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners in which proceedings the petitioners are regularly appearing and in such situation, question of petitioners being evading arrest never does arise.;