( 2025:JHHC:24675 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1757 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1757 of 2025 Adarsh Jee Anand, aged about 36 years, S/o Mr. Ramanand, Resident of Bahmani Road, Old Baridih, P.O. –Baridih, P.S. – Sidgora, Town –Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum .... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Pandey Ashok Nath Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 04.04.2025, passed in Mahila P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 69/89/91 of the B.N.S., 2023 whereby and where under the Learned A.C.J.M., Jamshedpur has issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner who is the accused person of that case and further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 19.06.2025, passed in the said Mahila P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur has directed for the issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C against the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that as the petitioner who is the accused person of the said Mahila P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 was absconding ( 2025:JHHC:24675 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1757 of 2025 and was evading his arrest, hence a petition was filed by the I.O. of the case for issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner who is the accused person of the said case. The learned A.C.J.M., Jamshedpur being satisfied on the basis of the materials in the record that the petitioner is involved in the commission of the non-bailable offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023, which provides for a maximum imprisonment for more than seven years and is a non-bailable offence as well as the fact that the accused person was evading and concealing his arrest, the learned A.C.J.M., Jamshedpur ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner vide order dated 04.04.2025 but even then the petitioner did not appear and the case was in the mean-while transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur. Again, a petition was filed by the I.O. through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, for issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate basing upon the materials available in the record which shows that four attempts were made by the I.O. of the case on different dates for arresting the petitioner by raiding his house, but the petitioner evaded his arrest; came to the conclusion that the petitioner is evading his arrest and was absconding and being thus satisfied directed for issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. 4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 that therein ( 2025:JHHC:24675 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1757 of 2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that as far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred and the warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Lahore High Court in the case of Qamardin Vs. Emperor, reported in AIR 1922 Lahore 475 (2) wherein it was held that if a person, who filed a petition against the order issuing the warrant and takes steps to procure an order of a Superior Court then he should be allowed to remain on bail, after such warrant has been issued and he can neither be said to be absconding nor concealing himself. Hence, it is submitted that as in this case, the petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail, in the court of learned Sessions Judge vide A.B.P. No. 448 of 2025, of course the same was rejected on 06.05.2025 and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned trial court within 30 days from 06.05.2025 but the petitioner instead of surrendering before the learned trial court filed A.B.A. No. 13713 of 2025 which is pending at present before the Lawazima Board, because the filing is a defective one, hence it is submitted that the learned A.C.J.M. and the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, respectively, have committed gross illegality by ordering for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation ( 2025:JHHC:24675 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1757 of 2025 under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Another, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 282 that filing of an anticipatory bail through an advocate would not amount and could not inter-alia be treated as appearance of the person before the trial court. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, the twin conditions required under Section 73 of the Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 75 of the B.N.S.S., for a Magistrate inter-alia to direct a warrant against an accused person of the case is that the accused person of the case is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading his arrest. 8. So far as the order dated 04.04.2025 is concerned, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is inter-alia accused of committing the offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S., 2023 which is both non-bailable offence and provides for a maximum punishment of imprisonment which may be up to 10 years and fine whereas, the offences punishable under Section 89 of the B.N.S. provides for maximum imprisonment for life, the offence punishable under ( 2025:JHHC:24675 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1757 of 2025 Section 91 of B.N.S. provides for maximum imprisonment for 10 years or fine or both and the petitioner besides being accused of committing the offence punishable under Section 69 of the B.N.S. is also accused of committing heinous offences like the offence punishable under Section 89/91 of the B.N.S. and basing upon the materials available in the record, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner was found absconding on four different occasions when raid was conducted in his house by the police, there was material for the learned A.C.J.M., Jamshedpur to be satisfied that the petitioner is evading his arrest besides being involved in non- bailable offences. Hence, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 04.04.2025, passed by the learned A.C.J.M., in Mahila P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025. 9. So far as the order dated 19.06.2025 is concerned, Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 84 of the B.N.S.S. vests the power upon inter-alia the court issuing the warrant of arrest to issue the proclamation, if the accused person of the case is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and as from the materials available in the record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur was satisfied that the petitioner is evading his arrest and was found absconding and after being thus satisfied, the learned Magistrate has directed for issue of the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 84 of the B.N.S.S., this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 19.06.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur in the said Mahila P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025. ( 2025:JHHC:24675 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.1757 of 2025 10. So far as the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others (supra) is concerned, keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs and his conduct of absconding as on four different occasions police raided his house, he successfully managed to evade his arrest, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a case where the learned ACJM exceeded his jurisdiction, in issuing the non-bailable warrant of arrest for apprehension of the petitioner and his production before the court concerned. Hence, as the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others (supra) is not applicable to the facthis case. 11. So far as the Judgment of Lahore High Court in the case of Qamardin Vs. Emperor (supra) is concerned, this Court, in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Another (supra), is of the considered view that if a person is evading his arrest by absconding, merely because an anticipatory bail application was filed, as has been made in this case with a defective filing and keeping the same remaining pending in lawzima Board of the court cannot be used as a shield to prevent the adherence of coercive steps by the court concerned against such accused person. Hence, this ( 2025:JHHC:24675 ) 7 Cr.M.P. No.1757 of 2025 Court is not in agreement of the view expressed by the Lahore High Court in the case of Qamardin Vs. Emperor (supra). 12. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justification for this Court to either interfere with the order dated 04.04.2025, passed in Mahila P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 of the court of learned A.C.J.M., Jamshedpur or the order dated 19.06.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur in the said Mahila P.S. Case No. 04 of 2025 warranting interference of this Court in either of the said two orders in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. 13. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 4th August, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-