[2025:JHHC:13141] 1 Cr. M.P. No.914 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.914 of 2025 ------ Gunjan Gupta, S/o Late Madan Mohan Prasad, Aged about 46 years, erstwhile working for gain as a Branch Manager at HDFC Bank Ltd., having one of its branches situated amongst other places at HDFC Bank Ltd., Purana Ghat Road, Maalgodam, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj (T), District- Sahibganj having permanent address at C/o Late Madan Mohan Prasad, Belwaticka Chowk, P.O.- Daltonganj, P.S.- Daltonganj, District- Palamau (Jharkhand). … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate Mr. Kumar Nischay, Advocate For the State : Md. Shahabuddin, SC-VII Md. Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- 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 several prayers for quashing:- a. the order dated 08.11.2017 by which the bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. b. the orders dated 15.05.2018, 18.09.2018 and 04.03.2025 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner; and [2025:JHHC:13141] 2 Cr. M.P. No.914 of 2025 c. the order dated 13.06.2019 by which the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued against the petitioner. all these orders except the order dated 15.05.2018 were passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.104 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.320 of 2013 involving the offences punishable under Section 420, 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 36 AD of Banking Regulation Act and the order dated 15.05.2018 was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with the said case. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner has been implicated in the said case, as an accused, in capacity of the Manager, HDFC Bank, Sahibganj. The petitioner was on bail and after that, charge-sheet was submitted by police. After submission of charge-sheet, summons was issued to the petitioner. Vide order dated 08.11.2017, without the service report of the summons issued to the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate concerned has ordered for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest. On 15.05.2018, without Execution Report of the bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate to whose court by the time the case was transferred, ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. Vide order dated 18.09.2018, the Judicial Magistrate again directed for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest again against the petitioner. Vide order dated 13.06.2019, without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself for evading his arrest, the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued against the petitioner. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner was split up and vide order dated 04.03.2025, again for the 3rd time non-bailable [2025:JHHC:13141] 3 Cr. M.P. No.914 of 2025 warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Judicial Magistrate concerned has committed a grave illegality by issuing the bailable warrant of arrest without receipt of the service report of the summons issued to the petitioner being served upon him and without service report of the summons being received by the court concerned. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 08.11.2017 is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj ought not to have issued non-bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without having any material in the record to show that the petitioner evaded his arrest. It is next submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj have committed a grave illegality in passing of such orders. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel No.VII appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner to quash the orders dated 08.11.2017, 15.05.2018, 18.09.2018, 04.03.2025 and 13.06.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.104 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.320 of 2013 and submits that the very fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj has issued bailable warrant of arrest, non- bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself shows that there were materials available in the [2025:JHHC:13141] 4 Cr. M.P. No.914 of 2025 record for the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj as the case may be, to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. 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 so far as the order dated 08.11.2017 is concerned, it is evident from the record that the service report of the summons issued to the petitioner who was on bail during the investigation of the case, has not been received by the concerned court. Therefore, in the absence of any material to suggest that the summons which has been issued by the learned Magistrate concerned itself has not been served upon the petitioner; certainly, the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by issuing the bailable warrant of arrest vide the said order dated 08.11.2017. 7. Similarly, so far as the orders dated 15.05.2018, 18.09.2018 and 04.03.2025 are concerned, perusal of the record reveals that though the bailable-warrant of arrest was never executed but without execution report of such bailable warrant of arrest, the learned Magistrate has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest, which is also not sustainable in law, because it is a settled principle of law that the learned Magistrate having once issued the bailable warrant of arrest, ought to have ensured that the execution report of such bailable warrant of arrest is received, before taking any further coercive action, like issue non- bailable warrant of arrest. More so, when there is no material available in the record to suggest that the petitioner was evading his arrest which is a sine qua [2025:JHHC:13141] 5 Cr. M.P. No.914 of 2025 non for directing a non-bailable warrant of arrest. Hence, the said orders dated 15.05.2018, 18.09.2018 and 04.03.2025 are also not sustainable in law. 8. So far as the order dated 13.06.2019 is concerned, by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it must mention the time and place for appearance of the petitioner in the order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is issued. 9. 9. As already indicated above; since the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj 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, who is the accused person of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law. 10. As already indicated above, the said orders dated 08.11.2017, 15.05.2018, 18.09.2018, 04.03.2025 and 13.06.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.104 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.320 of 2013 are 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 all the said orders dated 08.11.2017, 15.05.2018, 18.09.2018, 04.03.2025 and 13.06.2019 passed by the Judicial [2025:JHHC:13141] 6 Cr. M.P. No.914 of 2025 Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.104 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.320 of 2013, be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, all the said orders dated 08.11.2017, 15.05.2018, 18.09.2018, 04.03.2025 and 13.06.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in connection with Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.104 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.320 of 2013, is quashed and set aside. 12. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 13. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th of April, 2025 AFR/ Saroj