IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 191 of 2025 --------- Md. Waqar Alam @ Md. Wakar Alam, aged about 24 years, Son of Md. Dastagir Alam @ Lalu, resident of village-Vaishali Muslim Tola, P.O. & P.S.-Vaishali, District-Vaishali, Bihar … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, S.P.P. ----------- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------- Order No. 2/ 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 01.10.2024 issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner and order dated 18.12.2024 order of proclamation issued under section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. in connection with Pakur(T) P.S. Case No.9 of 2024, 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’s father in the business of stone mines and crusher since last three years and on 21.10.2023 at about 3-4 P.M., the present petitioner by taking the advantage of trust of the informant’s father, he went to the resident of the informant and finding people absent in the room stole Rs.1.80 lakhs cash and 8 bhari of gold jewellery. The further case is that for the business purpose, the informant was outside and when he returned then found missing of cash Cr.M.P. No.191 of 2025 2 and jewellery kept in the room. After enquiry from the workers and scrutinizing the C.C.T.V. footages, he found the petitioner entering into the office and committing the said offence. It is further alleged that the petitioner has also cheated other persons and when the contact was made with the father of the petitioner, he denied getting the contact of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that warrant of arrest was issued on 01.10.2024 against the petitioner in connection with Pakur (T) P.S. Case No.09 of 2024, meanwhile, the petitioner approached to the appropriate forum seeking remedy of anticipatory bail, which was pending before the Hon’ble High Court vide A.B.A. No.7766 of 2024 (Annexure 1) but during pendency of the anticipatory bail application, the concerned Investigating Officer of this case filed a petition for issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C against the petitioner and the learned court below without appreciating the concerned provision(s) of the Cr.P.C and guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.2722 of 2019 decided on 27.04.2020, has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and in flagrante ignorance of the guidelines propounded by this Court in the aforesaid case. Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to withdraw the anticipatory bail application pending before the Hon’ble High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.12.2024. Further, the petitioner has never deliberately violated the orders of the court rather he was seeking remedy as provided under law. Accordingly, the impugned order is fit to be set aside and this petition may be allowed. Cr.M.P. No.191 of 2025 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order and mere pendency of the anticipatory bail application in the Hon’ble High Court does not bar the issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C in a particular case. Therefore, this petition is fit to be set aside. 6. I have gone through the impugned order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur and rival contentions of the parties, it appears that the concerned court has passed the impugned order in a very cursory manner without discussing any materials, for satisfaction to issue the process under section 82 Cr.P.C against the petitioner and also ignored the guidelines passed by this Hon’ble High Court in Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam(supra), which was widely circulated among all the Judicial Officers of the State. Therefore, the impugned order of issuing process under section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner is, hereby set aside, allowing this petition. 7. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/-