Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) THE sole petitioner by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing the order dated 07.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby the court below after taking cognizance of the offence under Sections465/467/468/469/471/419/420/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, directed to issue non bailable warrant against the petitioner to secure his attendance before the court.
(2.) THE prosecution case, which are relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that at the instance of A.S.I. of Chakuliya Police Station, Telco P.S. Case No. 209 of 2014 was instituted under Sections 465/467/468/469/471/419/420/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and during investigation one Gunjan Kumar and Sudhir Kumar Thakur, who were also accused in one Chakuliya P.S. Case No. 28 of 2014, were arrested and in their confessional statement they disclosed the name of this petitioner Sanjay Kumar Thakur @ Sanjay Thakur and one Saukat Ali. The police after investigation submitted charge -sheet against Gunjan Kumar and Sudhir Kumar Thakur and the investigation against the petitioner and another accused Saukat Ali was kept pending. Subsequently the final form was submitted against the petitioner but the learned court below after considering the conduct of the accused -petitioner as well as the case diary found prima facie case against this petitioner also who was at that time posted as District Social Welfare Officer, Seraikella and took cognizance of the offence relying upon the earlier charge -sheet filed against the two other accused persons Gunjan Kumar and Sudhir Kumar Thakur and directed to issue non bailable warrant against this petitioner as indicated above. Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned senior counsel assailing the order impugned by which after taking cognizance, non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner, seriously contended that the court below after considering conduct of the petitioner and relying upon the evidences collected against two other accused persons in the earlier charge sheet took cognizance of the offence against this petitioner and directed to issue non bailable warrant of arrest without following the procedure prescribed in law and mandates of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was also submitted that the petitioner has no objection against the order taking cognizance but without applying judicial mind, the court below in a mechanical manner issued non bailable warrant in place of issuing summons for the appearance of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Vikas v. State of Rajasthan; : (2014) 3 SCC 321 submitted that after examination of all the prosecution witnesses in that case, a petition was filed under Section 319 of the Code and the court considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses directed to issue non bailable warrant against the accused for his trial with other accused persons of that case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the order of the issuance of non -bailable warrant and directed the trial court to issue summons against the accused of that case. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in this case also the mandates given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been followed as such the order impugned is liable to be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel representing the State fairly submitted that the court below has not followed the mandates of guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;