R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance.
(2.) THIS application is directed against the order dated 8.10.2013 passed by the In -charge Special Judge, Vigilance in Lalpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2013, whereby and whereunder warrant of arrested has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner. At the same time, the order dated 4.11.2013 is also under challenge whereby process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been ordered to be issued against the petitioner. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had never been named in the first information report. However, during investigation he has been made accused. As soon as the petitioner came to know that he has been made accused, he filed an anticipatory bail application on 18.10.2012 before the Special Judge, Vigilance. While the matter was pending for consideration, the court on the requisition submitted by the I.O. issued process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner though the court was very well knowing that the matter relating to anticipatory bail is still pending.
(3.) FURTHER , it was submitted that the order, under which warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued, is not in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 73 Cr.P.C. and thereby the order, under which warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued, is bad. The subsequent order, under which process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued, becomes automatically bad.;