IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.610 of 2009 JAINANDAN SHARMA, S/O SRI SURYADEV SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-BHELURA, P.S.-JANIPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CABINET VIGILANCE INVETIGATION BUREAU, BIHAR, PATNA. ………………RESPONDENT. ----------- 2 20.04.2010 In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.12.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna in Special Case No. 11 of 2001 (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11 of 2001) by which while taking cognizance against the petitioner under different provisions of the Indian Penal Code non-bailable warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against the accused persons including the petitioner. Referring to observations of the Apex Court in the case of Indra Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (AIR 2008 SC 251) learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, it was improper for the court below to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner straightaway without issuing summons and taking other steps for his appearance in the case. He has particularly referred to following 2 observations of the Apex Court: When non-bailable warrants should be issued 52. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when: * it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in the court; or * the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or * it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately. He also submits that the petitioner is in Government service. He submits that from the FIR prima facie it appears that the petitioner was not involved in the case. He submits that, in the circumstances, if he is taken into custody the same may adversely affect his service career. He submits that the petitioner, on his own, is ready to appear in the case and co-operate with the court and appear in the case at all point of time. Learned counsel for the Vigilance submits that if the petitioner voluntarily appears in the proceeding and gives a written undertaking to the above effect there may not be necessity for his arrest for the present. 3 In the circumstances, in view of the observations of the Apex court, as quoted above, and assurance given by learned counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner, this Court feels it appropriate that the petitioner should not be taken into custody pursuant to the said order of the court below dated 7.12.2007. Therefore, the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued pursuant to the said order is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner will appear in the case on the next date and shall file a written undertaking that he shall appear in the case on all subsequent dates and shall co-operate in the trial and shall not make any effort to tamper with the evidence. If such a written undertaking is given by the petitioner, the petitioner shall be released by the court below on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case no. 11 of 2001 in Special Case No. 11 of 2001. However, in case the petitioner breaches his undertaking the court below will be at 4 liberty to cancel his bail bond and take steps for his arrest. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)