JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY. J : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with twin prayers to quash the orders dated 21.08.2013 and 15.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in S.T. Case No.58 of 2013 arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.47 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case no.309 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 10, 13, 19 of U.P.A. Act pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, simultaneously. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press the prayer to quash the order dated 15.10.2015 and confines his prayer only to quash the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in S.T. Case No.58 of 2013 arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.47 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case no.309 of 2011 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 10, 13, 19 of U.P.A. Act. 4. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in S.T. Case No.58 of 2013 arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.47 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case no.309 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 10, 13, 19 of U.P.A. Act is rejected as not pressed. 5. 5. So far as the order dated 21.08.2013 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, simultaneously without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor there is any satisfaction recorded to the extent that the petitioner is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court concerned, hence, it is submitted that the same being not in accordance with law; the same be liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in S.T. Case No.58 of 2013 arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.47 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case no.309 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 10, 13, 19 of U.P.A. Act and submits that the very fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar has issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and the order of attachment under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were sufficient materials available in the record for the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such proclamation and proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Court to direct an issuance of warrant to any person inter alia who is accused of non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Court to direct an issuance of warrant to any person inter alia who is accused of non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remains that the petitioner is an accused of Manika P.S. Case No.47 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case no.309 of 2011 inter alia involving the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences which are non-bailable in nature, but there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar has recorded any satisfaction in the order dated 21.08.2013 passed in the said case, that the petitioner is evading his arrest, but without that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar having directed for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest; renders the said order dated 21.08.2023 not sustainable in law; so far as the non-bailable warrant of arrest is concerned. 9. So far as the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of 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 Cr.P.C. it must mention the time and place for appearance of the petitioner in the order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is issued. As already indicated above since the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner; the impugned order so far as it relates to issue of the proclamation under section 82 of Cr.P.C. is also not sustainable in law. 10. 10. So far as the attachment order of property under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, for simultaneously issuing the attachment order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C., along with the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., the additional requirement is that at the time of the issue of proclamation, the court concerned is satisfied by the affidavit or otherwise; that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court concerned. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, was satisfied by affidavit or otherwise that the petitioner is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property or is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court concerned. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that in the absence of any such material and in the absence of any satisfaction in this regard being recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar has committed a grave illegality by simultaneously issuing the attachment order of the property of the petitioner under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. along with the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., hence, the said order dated 21.08.2013 in this respect is also not sustainable in law. 12. In view of discussions made above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in S.T. Case No.58 of 2013 arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.47 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case no.309 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 10, 13, 19 of U.P.A. Act is also not in accordance with law and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case, where the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in S.T. Case No.58 of 2013 arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.47 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case no.309 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 10, 13, 19 of U.P.A. Act, be quashed and set aside. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 21.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar in S.T. Case No.58 of 2013 arising out of Manika P.S. Case No.47 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case no.309 of 2011 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 10, 13, 19 of U.P.A. Act, is quashed and set aside. 14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 15. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.