- (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that upon requisition being submitted before the court by the Investigating Officer on 6.7.2013, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner as well as against other persons including Rajesh Prasad Singh, Anil Kumar, Ajeshwar Prasad Singh and Piyush Kujur. They challenged the order under which warrant of arrest had been issued against them before the court. This Court after hearing did not find any illegality with the issuance of warrant of arrest. The point which had been raised in their applications was that this Court had already quashed the order under which warrant of arrest had been issued on 21.3.2013 as the same was not in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the order was quashed, a fresh requisition was submitted in which statements were made regarding the dates when the raid had been laid for arresting the accused. All those dates were prior to 21.3.2013.
(2.) AT that time argument what had been advanced was that as soon as order under which warrant of arrest was quashed on 21.3.2013, any action taken prior to 21.3.2013 would be nonest which could not be the basis for issuance of fresh warrant of arrest. However, that plea was not accepted by this Court and the application got dismissed. Being aggrieved with that order, some of the petitioners of those cases filed Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No.7581 of 2013 in which notice has been issued to the other side. In the meantime, an order has been passed to the effect that the warrant of arrest issued against those petitioner by the Special Judge (Vigilance) shall not be exeuted.
(3.) ACCORDING to Mr.Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, similar is the situation here and thereby the order needs to be passed in the same term in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order.;