Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) THE two petitioners by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed to quash the order dated 23.1.2015 passed by learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro whereby non -bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners without following the ingredients of Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') and complying the mandates and the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The factual aspects, which is relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that after getting some secret information that in the hard coke factory of the petitioners coal illegally extracted from the forest area has been stocked. The informant of this case conducted raid in the factory premises but after seeing the police party the persons inside the factory fled away and the informant found 100 tones of steam coal. On enquiry, the informant came to know that the petitioners are the owners of the factory and they are indulged in illegal coal business. Whereafter Mahuatand P.S. Case No. 74 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 1315 of 2014 was instituted under Sections 413/414/34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act.
(2.) IN course of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a requisition before the court for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioners and the court below vide order dated 23.1.2015 directed to issue warrant of arrest. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order by which warrant of arrest has been issued clearly stipulates the non -application of judicial mind of the court below as it was passed without following the ingredients of Section 73 of the Code as well as the mandates given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttranchal & Ors.; : (2007) 12 SCC 1. It was also submitted that even if the petitioners have committed any offence which are non -bailable in nature, the court at the first instance has to issue summons and it appears from the order sheet of the court below enclosed with this writ application that no summon was issued or any step was taken by the Investigating Officer before praying for issuance of non -bailable warrant. Hence, the order impugned is fit to be quashed.
(3.) CONTRARY to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the State seriously contended that as the petitioners were evading their arrest, the requisition was filed by the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant of arrest and it is wrong to say that order impugned lacks the application of judicial mind.;