Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The present application has been filed for quashing the orders dated 27.1.2015, 20.2.2015 and 19.3.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with G.R. Case No. 6165 of 2014 (Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 237 of 2014) under Ss. 304 -B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial court has passed the order for issuance of non -bailable warrant of arrest by order dated 27.1.2015 without following the procedure prescribed under Sec. 73 of Cr.P.C. That by order dated 20.2.2015, process under Sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. was issued on the prayer of the Investigating Officer and subsequently by order dated 19.3.2015, the trial court has ordered for issuance of process under Sec. 83 of Cr.P.C. in a mechanical and routine manner without recording its satisfaction. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has relied on the decision in the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in : 2011 (4) JLJR (SC) 385 wherein in para -9 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: - - "9. It needs little emphasis that since the execution of a non -bailable warrant directly involves curtailment of liberty of a person, warrant of arrest cannot be issued mechanically, but only after recording satisfaction that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is warranted. The Courts have to be extra -cautious and careful while directing issue of non -bailable warrant, else a wrongful detention would amount to denial of constitutional mandate envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, there is no gainsaying that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. Therefore, in order to maintain rule of law and to keep the society in functional harmony, it is necessary to strike a balance between an individual's rights, liberties and privileges on the one hand, and the State on the other. Indeed, it is a complex exercise. As justice Cardozo puts it "on the one side is the social need that crime shall be repressed. On the other, the social need that law shall not be flouted by the insolence of office. There are dangers in any choice." Be that as it may, it is for the court, which is clothed with the discretion to determine whether the presence of an accused can be secured by a bailable or non -bailable warrant, to strike the balance between the need of law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of the citizen from highhandedness at the hands of the law enforcement agencies on the other. - -" (Emphasis supplied) It is argued by the learned senior counsel that since the initial order has been passed in contravention of the provisions of law, as such, the consequential orders for issuance of warrant of arrest and processes under Ss. 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C. are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
(2.) Learned A.P.P. has opposed and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. That the court is empowered to issue warrant of arrest against an accused in non -bailable offence. That the execution report of non -bailable warrant was seen by the trial court thereafter processes were issued under Ss. 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C.
(3.) Having heard submission of learned counsels and on going through the certified copies of order -sheets, it is evident that the Investigating Officer had prayed for issuance of warrant of arrest on 27.1.2015 and the trial court without recording its satisfaction has in a routine manner ordered for issuance of non -bailable warrant and on subsequent dates, on the prayer of the Investigating Officer, processes under Ss. 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. have been issued by orders dated 20.2.2015 and 19.3.2015, respectively.;