IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 192 of 2025 --------- Md. Waqar Alam @ Wakar Alam, Aged about 24 years, Son of Md. Dastagir Alam, resident of Village-Vaishali Muslim Tola, P.O. & P.S.- Vaishali, District-Vaishali, Bihar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Parties ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P. ----------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------- 02/ Dated- 30/01/ 2025 1. Heard, Mr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The present petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 28.10.2024 by which warrant of arrest against the petitioner has been issued and order dated 02.12.2024 by which order of proclamation has been issued under section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. in connection with Pakur(T) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023, presently pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur. 3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this prosecution are that the petitioner has been employed under the informant since last three years and on 21.10.2023 at about 12:00 PM, by taking the advantage of trust of the informant, the petitioner went to the resident-cum-office of the informant and stole Rs.3 lakhs cash and 10 bhar of gold jewellery from the Almirah. For the business purpose, the informant was outside and when he returned then found missing of cash and jewellery kept in the Cr.M.P. No.192 of 2025 2 Almirah. After scrutinizing the C.C.T.V. camera, he found the petitioner entering into the office and committing the said offence. It is further alleged that the petitioner has earned more money by misappropriating money of the informant through the customers of the informant and has purchased an expensive flat in Kolkata. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in a mechanical manner, warrant of arrest and process under section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner while, he was pursuing his right of anticipatory bail. The petitioner has never absconded nor evaded from the arrest. Therefore, impugned orders dated 28.10.2024 and 02.12.2024 are absolutely illegal and liable to set aside, allowing the present petition. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference and this petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. Perused the case record, it appears that the petitioner is named accused in Pakur(T) P.S. Case No.238 of 2023 dated 22.12.2023 registered for the offence under sections 406, 420, 380 and 120B of IPC. The Investigating Officer of this case has filed a petition before the court concerned with a prayer to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner-Waqar Alam, which was allowed on 28.10.2024 and order for warrant of arrest has been received by the concerned Investigating Officer on 30.10.2024. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer again presented an application dated 02.12.2024 along with execution report of the warrant and prayed for issuance of process 82(1) Cr.P.C against the petitioner. It further appears from the impugned order that the concerned trial court has considered the application of the petitioner in the light of materials collected during Cr.M.P. No.192 of 2025 3 investigation and recording his satisfaction and also manner for publication and the date fixed for appearance of petitioner on 01.01.2025 at 10:00 AM before the jurisdictional court. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, I do not find any irregularity and infirmity in the impugned orders dated 28.10.2024 and 02.12.2024 calling for any interference. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. 8. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/-