IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22566 of 2007 Mannu Chaudhary, Son of Late Singheshar Chaudhary, Resident of Village Kaji Fatuchak, Police Station Barbigha (Kewati O.P.), District Sheikhpura. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Shobha Devi, Wife of Sri Naresh Malakar, Resident of Village Kaji Fatuchak, Police Station Barbigha (Kewati O.P.), District Sheikhpura. ------------ Opposite Parties ----------- 8 4.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this application is to quash the order dated 17.4.2007 and 26.4.2007 passed by the A.C.J.M., Sheikhpura in Barbigha (Kewati O.P.) P.S. Case No. 38 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under Sections 82 & 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from a bare perusal of the order dated 17.4.2007, it would be clear that Sub- inspector of Police of Kewati Out Post had filed a requisition for issuance of warrant of arrest as against the petitioner and other nine non-F.I.R. accused persons. The court, 2 after looking into the requisitions and having found that there were materials for implication of the petitioner and nine others, had allowed the prayer for issuance of non- bailable warrant of arrest against them whereafter the same was handed over to the concerned police officer on 20.4.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that within a period of five to six days, the officer-in- charge even without reporting to the court as with regard to the steps taken for service of non-bailable warrant of arrest had straightway proceeded to make a prayer for issuance of process against the petitioner and seven others whereafter the proclamation was issued by the court in terms of Section 82 & 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel would submit that such procedure undertaken by the court is not only hasty but also in complete breach of the provisions made under Sections 82 & 83 of the Code of Criminal procedure. This Court would find that earlier while calling for the carbon copy of the case diary, this Court had given liberty to the petitioner 3 to move for bail. This Court, however, has been apprised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner till date has not surrendered before the Court. From perusal of the photocopy of the case diary which has been received, it would be evident that there were certain materials gathered in course of investigation against a number of persons who were not named in the First Information Report and the petitioner was one of them. In the supervision note also role of the petitioner was clearly noticed. In that view of the matter, at least requisition made by the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner cannot be faulted with but what was really bad was that the court without ascertaining stage of service of such warrant of arrest had within a period of five to six days gone to make proclamation. Accordingly, while this Court would set aside the impugned order dated 26.4.2007 but at the same time this Court having perused the materials in the case diary would direct the petitioner to surrender before the court below 4 and seek bail within a period of thirty days from today, failing which the court below will be at liberty to pass coercive order for seeking his appearance. The officer-in-charge also is directed to proceed and submit a final report in terms of the findings already recorded against the petitioner. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)