IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P.No. 06 of 2025 Ram Sadhu Tudu, aged about 49 years, Son of Jamidar Tudu, Resident of Village Maheshpur, P.O. Kundahit, P.S. Kundahit, District-Jamtara …. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Menoka Tudu Wife of Vijendra Tudu, Resident of Village Maheshpur, P.O. Kundahit, P.S. Kundahit, District-Jamtara …. … Opp. Parties ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Spl. P.P. -------- Order No. 02/ dated 16.01.2025 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, warrant of arrest was issued and without proper execution of warrant of arrest against the petitioner and also without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is evading his arrest and absconding, the learned trial court has issued process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside. 2. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that from bare perusal of the impugned order, it is quite obvious that the I.O. has physically appeared before the concerned trial court and produced the entire case diary. Non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner which was returned unexecuted. In spite of several raids conducted by the I.O., the petitioner was evading from his arrest. The learned trial court has also considered the provisions of the 2 Cr.P.C. and recorded his satisfaction on the basis of the case diary that the petitioner is evading his arrest and absconded by concealing himself so that warrant of arrest could not be executed. Therefore, the learned trial court directed to issue process under Section 84 BNSS (old Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.) against the petitioner. There is no illegality in the impugned order and the same needs no interference. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. deserves to be dismissed. 3. Considering the rival contentions of parties and perusal of the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Jamtara, it is quite obvious that all the formalities have been complied with for issuance of process under Section 84 of BNSS and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Court on 04.01.2025 from the date of publication of the said process. 4. It further appears that the F.I.R. has been registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, notice under Section 35(3) BNSS/41(A) old Section of Cr.P.C. was not required. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this Cr. Misc. Petition which stands dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) P.K.S.