Pawan Khalkho vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 26.03.2015 and 23.04.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in Special Case No. 33 of 2011, corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 24 of 2011 whereby and whereunder, warrant of arrest and process under Section 82, Cr.P.C. have been issued respectively against the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, on the basis of the requisition submitted by the I.O. before the court below, stating therein that the petitioner has been evading arrest, but from the service report submitted by the S.I. Doranda Police Station, it would appear that the address on which warrant of arrest was issued, the petitioner was not living, rather according to report, the petitioner was living at his work place but subsequent to that, the I.O. submitted a requisition stating therein that the petitioner has been evading arrest, which opinion was formed as according to I.O. when he raided the house of the petitioner, the petitioner was not found present. When the petitioner was not living on the address, as has been found by the S.I. Doranda Police Station, how the petitioner would be found present, when the raid was laid by the Vigilance Police and, thereby, any statement made in the requisition that the petitioner was evading arrest is incorrect and hence, the order of issuance of warrant of arrest and consequently issuance of process under Section 82, Cr.P.C. are illegal.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed it out that the service report upon which reliance is being placed was inadvertently annexed with another application bearing Cri. M.P. No. 1144 of 2015, which has been listed along with this case, attention of this fact, has been drawn to the counsel appearing for the Vigilance.

Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that when the petitioner''s house was raided in presence of two witnesses, the petitioner was found absent and in that event, it was recorded that the petitioner was found absent and, thereby, requisition was submitted, stating therein that the petitioner has been evading arrest, which fact was mentioned in the requisition on the basis of the statement recorded in the case diary.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that earlier when the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner was given to Doranda Police Station for its execution, Doranda Police seems to have raided the house and did find that he is not living in his house, rather he lives at his working place, but subsequently, the Vigilance Police raided the same house and, thereby the police did find the petitioner absent. In such situation as stated above, the petitioner cannot be said to have been evading arrest.

In that event, order dated 26.03.2015 under which warrant of arrest has been issued and also the order dated 23.04.2015 under which process under Section 82, Cr.P.C. has been issued are quashed so far this petitioner is concerned.

It goes without saying that the Vigilance would be within its competence to act upon in this regard, in accordance with law. In the result, this application stands allowed.