1 2026:CGHC:5967 NAFR H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 26.11.2025 Judgment delivered on: 03.02.2026 Uploaded on : 03.02.2026 CRMP No. 2858 of 2025 1. Virendra Singh Tomar S/o Omprakash Aged About 44 Years R/o Sai Village- Bhatagaon, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward No. 61 Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Rohit Singh Tomar S/o Omprakash Tomar Aged About 31 Years R/o Sai Villa Bhatagaon, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward No. 61 Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- - Ig Raipur Range, OfÏce Of The Ig Raipur Range, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). 3. Police Station Purani Basti Through- Sho P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondent/s ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Satish Chandra Verma Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocate for petitioners For Respondent/State : Mr. Saurabh Pande, Dy. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, CAV Judgment 1. The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 whereby the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class issued a proclamation under Section 84 of the Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.02.03 16:26:48 +0530 2 BNSS without recording reasons to believe, and the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 whereby the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class initiated proceedings under Section 85 of the BNSS for attachment of the property of the petitioner in Crime No. 230/2025 dated 05.06.2025, registered at Police Station Purani Basti against the petitioners for offences under Sections 308(2), 111(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act and Impugned Non-bailable warrant dated 04.07.2025(Annexure P/4) against the petitioner without specifying the reason to believe and directed them to appear before the Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.06.2025, Police Station Purani Basti received a communication conducted in Crime No. 332/2025 registered at P.S. Telibandha under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) IPC against Petitioner Rohit Singh Tomar Acting on this communication, a search warrant was obtained, and a search was carried out on 03.06.2025, where certain documents were allegedly seized. On the same day, FIR No. 230/2025 was registered against the petitioners. Statements of three witnesses-Shri Jaideep Banerjee, Shri Manish Sahu, and Shri Nasir Bakhsh were recorded, alleging that the petitioners used signed cheques and stamp papers as security for loans, and thereafter allegedly coerced persons to repay with exorbitant interest or transfer undervalued land. Based solely on these allegations, the Investigating OfÏcer sought issuance of coercive process. On 04.07.2025, the Learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioners and directed them to 3 appear before the Court. Thereafter the Learned Magistrate passed the impugned proclamation order dated 14.07.2025 under Section 84 BNSS and the petitioners were directed to appear on 18.08.2025, the Learned Magistrate hurriedly passed the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 initiating proceedings for attachment under Section 85 BNSS-five days before the appearance date exhibiting clear arbitrariness and misuse of judicial power. 3. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders dated 14.07.2025 and 13.08.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class are contrary to the provisions of Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS, inasmuch as no "reasons to believe" were recorded regarding the petitioners having absconded or concealing themselves, which is a mandatory precondition for issuing proclamation proceedings. or initiating attachment proceedings. The Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class acted mechanically and without due application of judicial mind, by passing the impugned orders solely on the plea of the Investigating OfÏcer, without examining the case diary, documents, or evidence to arrive at a subjective satisfaction as required under law. 4. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the proclamation order dated 14.07.2025 in perfunctory and non- speaking, consisting merely of recitals of facts, without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Section 84 BNSS, which requires publication of a proclamation allowing not less than 30 days' time for 4 appearance, supported by recorded satisfaction. The order dated 13.08.2025 initiating attachment proceedings under Section 85 BNSS is also arbitrary, mala fide, and violative of the statutory mandate, inasmuch as the preconditions of Section 84 BNSS were not satisfied and no valid proclamation was issued before proceeding to attachment. The impugned orders infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, being arbitrary, illegal, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed his reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State through C.B.I. v. Dawood Ibrahim Kakkar, (2000) 10 SCC 438 whereby it has categorically been held that issuance of warrants and subsequent proceedings must be based on proper judicial discretion, recording of satisfaction, and not on the mere asking of the Investigating Agency. The impugned orders suffer from complete non-compliance with this settled law. 5. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the impugned orders suffer from complete non-application of mind, an held to be impermissible in Pankaj Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online All 1542, wherein it was categorically observed: A bland assertion that the accused is "evading arrest" is not sufÏcient; The Magistrate must explicitly record (i) dates when notice was issued, (ii) whether the accused was aware of proceedings, (iii) materials establishing absconding. In the present case, the impugned proclamation order is a stereotyped, 5 nine-line extract containing no reasons, no dates, no satisfaction, and no discussion of record. 6. Moreover, Section 84 BNSS (analogous to Section 82 Cr.P.C. ) mandates that the Magistrate must record reasons to believe that: a warrant has been issued, the person has absconded or concealed himself, the warrant cannot be executed, as held in Pankaj Singh (supra), that "It is a mandatory duty of the court to record how and when the person absconded or concealed himself... Unless such subjective satisfaction is recorded, Section 82 CrPC (now Section 84 BNSS) cannot be invoked." In the present case: No such reasons have been recorded, No date is mentioned when service was attempted, No material is referred from case diary, No satisfaction is recorded that warrant could not be executed. This renders the entire proclamation order void ab initio. Moreover, Section 85 BNSS (analogous to Section 83 Cr.P.C.) can be invoked only after a legal and valid proclamation under Section 84. Since the proclamation itself is invalid, the attachment order automatically collapses. Section 82/84 orders must be strictly construed as they affect liberty and property; Orders under the attachment provision cannot survive if the foundational proclamation is illegal. Thus the impugned attachment order dated 13.08.2025 is illegal. Further the Learned Magistrate passed the attachment order on 13.08.2025 when the petitioners were required to appear on 18.08.2025, itself establishes: arbitrariness, lack of judicial fairness, pre-determined mind, undue influence of police. This precise 6 conduct of passing coercive orders in haste has been strongly deprecated in Pankaj Singh (supra). The impugned orders deprive liberty and property, without due process, without satisfaction, without reasons, contrary to statutory safeguards. This is violative of the settled law that "procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable. 7. Sr. Counsel placed a reliance upon a decision of Hon’ble Allahabhad High Court in the matter of Pankaj Singh V. State of U.P. 2022 SCC Online All 1542 held as under:- 8. Having considered submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, it appears that initially an application was filed by the investigating ofÏcer for issuance of non bailable warrant against the petitioner whereafter non bailable warrants were issued and subsequently the order impugned has been passed under section 82 Cr. P.C. It is not denied that the petitioner was initially not named in the first information report. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court concerned has passed orders under section 82 Cr.P. after examining the case diary and upon the plea raised by the investigating ofÏcer regarding non cooperation of petitioner in the investigations being carried out. However it is also evident that a number of accused have been named in the first information report but only a general allegation 7 has been recorded in the order impugned with regard to non cooperation in the investigation proceedings. The court concerned has not bothered to indicate on which dates the petitioner was made aware with regard to issuance of any letter by the investigating ofÏcer for seeking cooperation in the investigation or even the date on which the non bailable warrant was served upon the petitioner. There is only a bland assertion recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner is evading arrest. 10. Section 82 Cr. P.C. pertains to proclamation for person absconding and for provisions of attachment. It clearly states that the court has to record a reason to believe if any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant can not be executed then such court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at specified place and at a specified time not less than 30 days from the date of publishing such proclamation. 11. Upon perusal of provision of Section 82 Cr. P.C., it is evident that prior to issuance of any order under the said provision, the court has to record a reason that the person against whom warrant has been issued has specifically absconded or has concealed himself so that such a warrant can not be executed. As such from reading of the 8 aforesaid provision, it is a mandatory duty cast upon the court concerned to record as to how and when the person concerned has absconded or has concealed himself so that the warrant can not be executed. For such purpose, it is the duty of the court concerned to indicate that the person was aware of the proceedings against him particularly also the investigation being conducted against him. Unless and until such a subjective satisfaction is recorded by the court concerned, provisions of Section 82 Cr. P.C. can not be invoked by the court concerned. 12. In the case of Dawood Ibrahim (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to provisions of section 73 which may be read in the context of Section 82 Cr. P.C. in the following manner:- "24. Now that we have found that Section 73 of the Code is of general application and that in course of the investigation a Court can issue a warrant in exercise of power thereunder to apprehend, inter alia, a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest, we need answer the related question as to whether such issuance of warrant can be for his production before the police in aid of investigation. It cannot be gainsaid that a Magistrate plays, not infrequently, a role during investigation, in that, on the prayer of the Investigating Agency he holds a test identification parade, records the confession of 9 an accused or the statement of a witness, or takes or witnesses the taking of specimen handwritings etc. However, in performing such or similar functions the Magistrate does not exercise judicial discretion like while dealing with an accused of a non-bailable offence who is produced before him pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under Section 73. On such production, the Court may either release him on bail under Section 439 or authorise his detention in custody (either police or judicial) under Section 167 of the Code. Whether the Magistrate, on being moved by the Investigating Agency, will entertain its prayer for police custody will be at his sole discretion which has to be judicially exercised in accordance with Section 167(3) of the Code. Since warrant is and can be issued for appearance before the Court only and not before the police and since authorization for detention in police custody is neither to be given as a matter of course nor on the mere asking of the police, but only after exercise of judicial discretion based on materials placed before him, Mr. Desai was not absolutely right in his submission that warrant of arrest under Section 73 of the Code could be issued by the courts solely for the production of the accused before the police in aid of investigation." 13. The aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that for exercise of powers by the magistrate concerned, orders are not to be passed as a matter of course on a mere asking of police 10 but only after exercise of judicial discretion based on material placed before him particularly since provisions of Section 82 Cr. P.C. are stringent in nature and may entail loss of liberty and property. 14. In the present case, merely a bland advertment to the case diary would not be enough, the court has a bounden duty to indicate the factors for which it has reason to believe that the person concerned has absconded or is not cooperating for the purposes of service of warrant. Such a procedure is compulsorily required to be undertaken by the court concerned in view of the provisions of Section 82 Cr. P.C. 15. Learned counsel for petitioner has also referred to judgment of this Court in the case of Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra) with the submission that prior to issuance of any order under Section 82 Cr. P.C., it is compulsory that the magistrate should consider the application of the investigating ofÏcer which should be supported by afÏdavit stating the reasons why non bailable warrant and proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P.C. is required since the issue relates to personal liberty of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 16. Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment, juxtaposed with the provisions of Section 82 Cr. P.C., it is the considered opinion of this Court that submission of an afÏdavit by the 11 investigating ofÏcer at the time of making of application for issuance of process under Section 82 Cr. P.C. can not be a mandatory provision. There is no such provision under Section 82 Cr. P.C. requiring the investigating ofÏcer to submit an afÏdavit along with the application. Such a provision may be required when orders are being passed simultaneously under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C., but can not be considered to be mandatory at the time of consideration of an application filed only under section 82 Cr. P.C. It is trite that casus omissus can not be supplied by the court particularly when there is no confusion with regard to the provisions of statute. As such and also upon reading of the judgment of this Court in the case of Kunwar Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra), it is evident that the requirement of afÏdavit to be filed by the investigating ofÏcer while seeking an application for issuance of proceedings under Section 82 Cr. P.C. is merely directory and not mandatory and may be insisted upon the court concerned in specific cases for reasons to be recorded. 17. Considering the aforesaid factors, it is evident that the impugned orders not being in consonance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are therefore unsustainable. Consequently the impugned orders dated 31st August, 2021 and 15th September, 2021 passed passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh with regard to case crime No. 407 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 12 and 302 IPC in Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh quashed and resultantly the petition is a allowed. Liberty however is granted to the court concerned for passing fresh orders in case it is necessary to do so but only in accordance with provisions of Section 82 Cr. P.C. as indicated herein above." 8. Lastly, Learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has acted in a wholly arbitrary, illegal, and mala fide manner by passing the impugned orders, directing attachment of the petitioners' property, despite the fact that the petitioners were already directed to appear on 18.08.2025, therefore he prays to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, whereby a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS has been issued against the petitioners, being illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law; and also prays to auash and set aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, whereby proceedings under Section 85 BNSS for attachment of property have been initiated against the petitioners, being illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and also prays for quashment of Impugned Non-bailable warrant dated 04.07.2025 against the petitioner without specifying the reason to believe and directed them to appear before the Court which is bad in law. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that against the 13 petitioners Crime No. 230/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under sections 308(2), 111 of BNS and section 4 of Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 against the petitioner and other co- accused persons. During investigation of the Crime it has been surfaced that against the present petitioners various crimes have been registered within the Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Gudiyari, Tikrapara, Devendra Nagar, Kotwali, Purani Basti, Kabir Nagar District Raipur. The details of which are as under:- The petitioner No. 1Virendra Singh Tomar has 12 criminal antecedents S. N o. Crime / FIR No. & Year Police Station Sections Invoked Status / Remarks 1 130/2006 Saraswati Nagar, Raipur Sections 307, 324, 147, 148, 149, 34 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act Charge-sheet filed; Criminal Case No. 3653/2006 registered before the competent Court. 2 111/2010 Gudiyari, Raipur Sections 294, 323, 506-B, 34 IPC Charge-sheet filed; Criminal Case No. 102/2010 registered before the competent Court. 3 189/2013 Tikrapara, Raipur Section 302 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act Charge-sheet filed; Criminal Case No. 543/2013 registered before the competent Court. 4 181/2016 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC — 5 288/2017 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 294, 506, 34 IPC — 6 134/2019 Devendra Nagar, Raipur Sections 384, 34 IPC — 7 178/2019 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 420, 34 IPC — 8 215/2019 Kotwali, Raipur Sections 327, 384, 506-B, 34 IPC — 9 216/2019 Kotwali, Raipur Sections 384, 327, 294, 323, 506-B, 34 IPC — 10 124/2019 Kabir Nagar, Raipur Sections 384, 34 IPC — 14 S. N o. Crime / FIR No. & Year Police Station Sections Invoked Status / Remarks 11 229/2025 Purani Basti, Raipur Section 25 of the Arms Act — 12 230/2025 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 308(2), 111(1) of BNS and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act, 2005 — The petitioner -Rohit Singh Tomar has 16 criminal antecedents, the particulars of which are mentioned as under. S. No. Crime No. / Year Police Station Sections Invoked Current Status / Remarks 1 189/2015 Kotwali, Raipur Sections 376, 294, 506, 377 IPC Charge-sheet filed vide Challan No. 194/15 dated 23.08.2015; Criminal Case No. 14318/2015 registered. 2 302/2016 Kotwali, Raipur Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC Charge-sheet filed vide Challan No. 266/16 dated 17.12.2016; Criminal Case No. 23613/2016 registered. 3 288/2017 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 294, 506, 34 IPC — 4 56/2018 Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC Charge-sheet filed (details mentioned above in chart). 5 121/2018 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 386, 507 IPC Charge-sheet filed vide Challan No. 75/18 dated 27.05.2018; Criminal Case No. 3044/2018 registered. 6 215/2019 Kotwali, Raipur Sections 327, 384, 506-B, 34 IPC Charge-sheet filed vide Challan No. 178/19 dated 14.06.2019; Criminal Case No. 5967/2019 registered. 7 216/2019 Kotwali, Raipur Sections 384, 327, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 IPC Charge-sheet filed vide Challan No. 181/19 dated 19.06.2019; Criminal Case No. 6115/2019 registered. 8 124/2019 Kabir Nagar, Raipur Sections 384, 34 IPC Charge-sheet filed vide Challan No. 194/15 dated 23.08.2015; (also referred above). 9 134/2019 Devendra Nagar, Raipur Sections 384, 34 IPC Charge-sheet filed vide Challan No. 155/19 dated 30.11.2019; Criminal Case No. 12808/2019 registered. (Earlier Case No. 15 S. No. Crime No. / Year Police Station Sections Invoked Current Status / Remarks 14318/2015 also registered.) 10 154/2023 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 294, 323, 506 IPC — 11 93/2024 Telibandha, Raipur Sections 427, 307, 34 IPC Charge-sheet filed vide Challan No. 144/24 dated 31.03.2024; Criminal Case No. 6832/2024 registered. 12 332/2025 Telibandha, Raipur Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) BNS — 13 230/2025 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 308(2), 111(1) BNS and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 — 14 231/2025 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 308(2), 111(1) BNS and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 — 15 253/2025 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 294, 506, 34 IPC — 16 264/2025 Purani Basti, Raipur Sections 384, 506, 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937 — 10. The learned State counsel submitted further that after registration of the present crime the statement of the witnesses were recorded under section 180 of the BNSS and at their instance articles have been seized from the house of the applicant from Divyansh Tomar, Jaideep Banjerjee, Neha Tomar @ Subhra Singh Tomar, Jitendra Dewangan, Banti Sahare, Rajiv Pandey, Bhawna Singh Tomar, Rajeshwar Rao, Nishant Joshi and further a statement Panchanama was also recorded. On being recovery of the articles the whereabouts of the present petitioners are being searched but despite best efforts 16 and search and seizure the applicants could not be traced and at present the investigation is going on and after due investigation the police will file appropriate charge sheet before the Court having competent jurisdiction. During investigation information in respect to possession of Arms license has been sought from the District Magistrate, Raipur District Raipur (CG) vide letter dated 04/06/2025 by the SHO, Police Station Purani Basti District Raipur (CG). Upon which it has been informed by the OfÏce of District Magistrate, Raipur through the Additional District Magistrate that the arms liceses issued in favour of the present petitioner and brother of the petitioner Rohit Tomar has been cancelled in the year 2013 on account of the involvement of the petitioners in criminal activities. 11. The State Counsel further submitted that the present petitioners are absconding and despite best efforts their whereabouts are not traced and therefore the Sr. Superintendent of Police, District Raipur vide its order dated 26/06/2025 made a declaration for giving reward of Rs.5000/- if any information in respect to the present petitioners are provided by the individual. Thereafter the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur vide its order dated 04/07/2025 issued arrest warrant against the present petitioners and to submit the report whether served or unserved before the Court below upto to 14/07/2025. The police after issuance of the arrest warrant against the present petitioners tried their level best in searching the whereabouts of the petitioners but could not be traced and the arrest warrant as has been issued by the Learned Court below could not be 17 executed and accordingly vide letter dated 14/07/2025 the warrant as has been issued by the Hon'ble Court has been deposited before the Court below, as unserved and further a request has been made by the Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur to issue a proclamation order as per the provisions of section 84 of the BNSS, 2023 against the petitioners. The Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, as per the provisions of section 84 of the BNSS, 2023 satisfying himself passed the proclamation order dated 14/07/2025 wherein it has been directed to produce the present petitioners before the Court below on or before 18/08/2025. 12. The State counsel further submitted that after issuance of the proclamation order against the present petitioners police deployed their informers and further reward has also been issued in respect to providing information pertaining to the petitioners and police are trying their level best but the accused persons could not be traced and therefore the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police after identified the immovable properties of the petitioners had moved an application before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 13/08/2025 for initiating proceedings under section 85 of the BNSS for attachment of the property of the petitioners in Crime No. 230/2025. The Learned Court of 3rd Civil Jude, Senior Grade, Raipur District Raipur vide its memo dated 13/08/2025 directed the District Magistrate District Raipur to initiate the Kurki/RRC proceedings in respect to the immovable property of the absconded accused persons/petitioners in respect to 18 Crime No. 230/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur. 13. It is respectfully submitted by the State Counsel that during pendency of the present case the present petitioner No.1/Virendra Singh Tomar has been arrested on 09/11/2025 from Gwalior (MP) and was produced before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur and after obtaining police remand and judicial remand the petitioner is languishing in jail. It is thus clear that the respondents have initiated the proceedings against the petitioners strictly in accordance with law and the BNSS Act, 2023 and thus the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. The record reveals that after registration of Crime No. 230/2025, repeated efforts were made by the investigating agency to secure the presence of the petitioners, including execution of search, seizure, recording of statements of witnesses and issuance of non-bailable warrants. Despite such efforts, the petitioners could not be traced and the warrants remained unexecuted. The material placed by the State clearly indicates that the petitioners were deliberately evading arrest. The report of the Station House OfÏcer regarding non-execution of the warrants, the declaration of reward for information about the petitioners, and the continued failure to secure their presence constitute sufÏcient material for the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the petitioners had absconded or were concealing themselves. In such 19 circumstances, the issuance of proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS cannot be said to be mechanical or without jurisdiction. 16. As regards the contention that the learned Magistrate did not record “reasons to believe” in detail, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class acted within the four corners of Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS. The proclamation order was preceded by issuance of non-bailable warrant and a report regarding its non-execution. The attachment proceedings were initiated only to ensure the presence of the accused. Mere absence of elaborate reasoning in the impugned orders does not render them illegal when the satisfaction of the Court is clearly evident from the record as a whole. The submission that the attachment order was passed five days prior to the date fixed for appearance, by itself, does not vitiate the proceedings, particularly in view of the overwhelming material showing persistent abscondence of the petitioners and the necessity to prevent frustration of the process of law. 17. The submission of the petitioners that the impugned orders were passed mechanically and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be accepted. The material on record discloses persistent evasion by the petitioners, coupled with their extensive criminal antecedents, which justified the adoption of coercive measures. The reliance placed by learned senior counsel for the petitioners in the matters of Pankaj Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) and State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (supra) does not advance the case of the petitioners, as the facts of the present case clearly demonstrate due application of judicial mind and existence of material forming the basis of the impugned orders. 20 18. Moreover, during the pendency of the present petition, petitioner No.1 – Virendra Singh Tomar has been arrested on 09.11.2025 and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, whereafter he was remanded to police/judicial custody. In view of the said subsequent development, the primary grievance of the petitioners regarding proclamation, non-bailable warrant and attachment proceedings no longer survives, and the relief sought has lost its efÏcacy. 19. Once the petitioner No.1 Virendra Singh Tomar has been apprehended and is in custody, the challenge to the proclamation and attachment proceedings, which were essentially coercive measures to secure his presence, has become academic in nature. No effective or live relief can now be granted in the present petition. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is devoid of merit and, in any case, has become infructuous due to the subsequent arrest of petitioner No.1. 21. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of infructuousness. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti