( 2025:JHHC:28567 ) Cr.M.P. No.2392 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2392 of 2025 Arjun Marandi, aged about 28 years, Son of Rasik Marandi, resident of Village Murgabani, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Poraiyahat, District -Godda. .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Singh, 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 three fold prayers but the petitioner do not press the prayer to quash the order dated 23.04.2019 by which attachment order of property under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued and it is submitted that as yet, no attachment of the property of the petitioner has been made in terms of the order dated 23.04.2019. Hence, the prayer to quash the order dated 23.04.2019, passed in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.347 of 2017 is rejected as not pressed. 3. It is next submitted that the petitioner confines his prayer to quash the order dated 09.01.2019, passed in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017 by ( 2025:JHHC:28567 ) Cr.M.P. No.2392 of 2025 2 which the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. The petitioner also prays for quashing the order dated 19.03.2019, passed in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017 by which the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur against the petitioner. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2024:JHHC:22643 that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur vide order dated 09.01.2019, passed in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017, in a mechanical manner has issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is evading his arrest. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued vide order dated 19.03.2019, passed in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017 without following the due process of law and without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest which is a sine qua non for issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the said order is an illegal one as the proclamation has been ordered to be issued without fixing any time and place for appearance of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as ( 2025:JHHC:28567 ) Cr.M.P. No.2392 of 2025 3 prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the orders dated 09.01.2019 and 19.03.2019, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017 and submits that the very fact that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Magistrate to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such proclamation and non-bailable warrant of arrest. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests the power inter-alia upon the Magistrate of the First Class to direct warrant to any person who is the accused of non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. 7. Now coming to the facts of this case, in the order dated 09.01.2019, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017, though it has not been specifically mentioned about the petitioner having committed any non-bailable offence but perusal of record reveals that the ( 2025:JHHC:28567 ) Cr.M.P. No.2392 of 2025 4 petitioner is involved in commission of the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code which is a non- bailable offence but there is no observation by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur that the petitioner is evading arrest, but having still issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest, the same amounts to issuing nonbailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner, without application of judicial mind and therefore, renders the order dated 09.01.2019, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017, not sustainable in law. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 09.01.2019, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017 is quashed and set aside. 9. So far as the order dated 19.03.2019, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017 is concerned, by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it must mention the time and place for appearance of the accused person in the order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is issued. As already indicated above, since the learned Sub ( 2025:JHHC:28567 ) Cr.M.P. No.2392 of 2025 5 Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has not fixed any time and place for appearance of the petitioner- who is the accused person of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. without complying the mandatory requirement of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 19.03.2019, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017 be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 19.03.2019, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in connection with Littipara P.S. Case No. 31 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 347 of 2017, is quashed and set aside. 11. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 12. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 2nd September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-