Satish Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—The defect, pointed out by the office, has already been removed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in this application prayer has been made for quashing of the first information report of Kadma P.S. Case No. 45 of 2013 as also the order dated 15.4.2013, under which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, but the petitioner would be confining his prayer only with respect to the order dated 15.4.2013.

Having heard learned counsel For the parties, I do find that the order dated 15.4.2013, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner, is never in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 73, Cr.P.C.

From the requisition, upon which warrant of arrest was issued, it appears that the Investigating Officer sought issuance of warrant of arrest on the ground that sufficient materials have been collected and that direction of the superior is there for arresting this petitioner. Those grounds are never in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 73, Cr.P.C.

It be stated that the provision of Section 73 Cr.P.C. does confer a power upon a Magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest of three classes of the persons namely, (i) escaped convict; (ii) a proclaimed offender; and (iii) a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.

As I have noted above that the requisition never refers to any of the classes as mentioned above, any order passed for issuance of warrant of arrest in absence of any condition as mentioned above certainly appears to be bad.

Accordingly, the order dated 15.4.2013, I under which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, is hereby sot aside.

Consequently, the order dated 17.6.2013, passed for issuance of the process u/s 82, Cr.P.C. is also set aside, as the said order never seems to have been passed in accordance with law. Thus, this application stands disposed of.