The central legal point established in the judgment is that a warrant of arrest is not required if the accused is not evading arrest, and the conditions for issuance of the warrant must be met.

1. Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner has made two prayers in the writ petition. The first prayer is to restrain the respondents from arresting him in connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 154 of 2012 and the second prayer is to set aside the warrant of arrest dated 18.5.2012 issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria.

3. One Rakesh Kumar Singh (respondent no.4) submitted a written information to Forbesganj Police Station on 21.4.2012 on the basis of which, the aforesaid F.I.R. was registered under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up.

4. It has been alleged in the written report filed on behalf of the informant that he is a privately employed person earning a measly sum of Rs. 3000/- per mensem and on being propelled by his faith in the petitioner and hoping for financial gains had deposited a total sum of Rs. 1000/- ‘dasvand’ (tenth part of earnings) in three instalments in the publicized Bank account of Punjab National Bank standing in the name of the petitioner. The informant has alleged that as he failed to derive any financial gains or fortune and subsequently having come to know that the petitioner has duped several persons all over the country, he felt duped by the petitioner in the name of religion and thus an information in this regard was made to the police.

5. The F.I.R. was received in the court on 23.4.2012.

6. The petitioner has brought on record two requisitions submitted by the police seeking warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The first application seeking warrant was filed on 23.4.2012 itself, the date on which the F.I.R. reached the Court. In the first application it is stated that the petitioner who is a named accused in the case is residing at Delhi and in order to arrest him, the police wanted to go to Delhi for which a warrant of arrest was necessary as in absence of a warrant of arrest, it would not be possible to arrest him. At the foot of the requisition, it has been noted that the petitioner is a named accused of the F.I.R. and from the statement of the informant and witnesses recorded in course of investigation as also from the documents available, the occurrence seems to be true and there is sufficient material on the basis of which charge-sheet may be submitted against the petitioner.

7. The second requisition is dated 28.4.2012. The contents therein are nothing but the repetition of facts stated in the first application dated 23.4.2012.

8. The learned C.J.M., Araria by his order dated 18.5.2012 allowed the prayer made by the Investigating Officer and directed for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The impugned order dated 18.5.2012 goes to show that before the order was passed, the investigating officer had produced a photocopy of the supervision note of the supervising officer of the case and being satisfied with the same, the order impugned was passed.

9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the F.I.R. does not disclose any cognizable offence which demands arrest to follow and the law does not obligates the police to arrest simply because a cognizable offence is alleged. The petitioner is a highly revered spiritual guide, renowned over the world for his spiritual discourses.

10. He further submits that at no point of time, he was ever served with any notice to appear before the police not did the police ever visited the premises of the petitioner for the purposes of investigating the veracity of the F.I.R. The applications seeking warrant of arrest were filed almost simultaneously after the institution of the F.I.R. In law, arrest is not made simply because the F.I.R. has been registered unless there is a justification for arrest which is non-existent in the present case.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Magistrate while issu