IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5446 of 2010 VIJAY KUMAR @ VIJAY SAH son of Tarkeshwar Prasad, village Bhaluhipur, PS Arrah Town, District Bhojpur – petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. ----------- 3 12.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ara in Cr. Revision No. 158/2009 in connection with Ara Town PS Case No. 9/2001, affirming the order, dated 25.4.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ara in the aforesaid case by which the petitioner has been declared as an absconder. On perusal of the records I find that the petitioner was granted bail on 23.1.2001. Charge sheet in the case was submitted on 29.9.2001 and on the same day the court took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the summon was never served on him nor was he served either bailable or non-bailable warrant of arrest. This aspect of the matter has not been discussed by the courts below while considering the case of the petitioner. The revisional court ought to have called for the records and examined them to see whether there was service of summons, whether bailable / non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued. From the order sheet which has been annexed with this application it appears that at no stage was the petitioner noticed in this case. 2 It is well settled and has been held in the case of Sri K. Ramakrishna Singh vs. State of Bihar and others, 1995 PLJR 217 that if summons, bailable warrant of arrest and non-bailable warrant of arrest have not been served on the accused petitioner, the issuance of notice under sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. is not warranted. The court ought to have waited the execution of non-bailable warrant of arrest for taking steps under sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. In the mean time as per the order of this court, dated 16.2.2010 the petitioner has surrendered in court and is now in custody. Accordingly I quash the order, dated 25.4.2006 by which summons under sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have been issued and the revisional order, dated 19.11.2009. This application is allowed and the court below is directed to dispose of the bail petition of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a week. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to deposit the cost of Fax for communicating this order to the court concerned. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)