JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AC to SC-8 at length.

2. Petitioners in the present case are seeking the following reliefs:

“(I) Quashing of the orders dated 29.03.2019 and 07.01.2020 passed by the learned Court of 6th Additional Sessions – cum – Special Judge, Excise, Saran whereby, merely on the basis of an application of the Investigating Officer, warrant of arrest (under Section 73 of the Cr.P.C.) and proclamation order (under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.), respectively , have been issued against the petitioners, in connection with Avtar Nagar P.S. Case No. 135/2017 dated 25.09.2017, which has been registered under Sections 342, 323, 332, 333, 353, 504, 506, 34, 307, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 45 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

(ii) Stay of the order dated 29.03.2019 and 07.01.2020, during the pendency of the criminal writ application, and

(iii) For grant of any other relief/reliefs, as may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither in the order dated 29.03.2019 nor in the order dated 07.01.2020, the learned Special Judge, Excise, Saran has recorded any reason for allowing the application for issuance of warrant of arrest, as also the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. filed by the Investigating Officer in Avtarnagar P.S. Case No. 135/2017.

4. Learned counsel submits that the orders impugned being wholly without reasons are liable to be setaside. In this connection, learned counsel has relied upon Sections 73 & 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his submission, unless a person such as present petitioners are said to be evading arrest, only because they are an accused in a non-bailable offence, in terms of Section 73 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Special Judge, Excise, was not justified in issuing a warrant of arrest.

5. Learned counsel further submits that under Section 82 Cr.P.C. there must be ‘reason to believe’ (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by the court has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, only upon such ‘reason to believe’ the court may publish a written proclamation in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that Section 82 Cr.P.C. talks of subjective satisfaction of the learned court.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has drawn the attention of this court towards the First Information Report lodged by the ASI of Police, who was posted at the relevant time in Avtarnagar Police Station. It is alleged that on 25.09.2017, on an information that illicit liquors in huge quantity are being transported by the present petitioner no. 1 who had earlier also gone to jail in connection with the said offence, a raid was conducted and in course of that raid the police personnel were attacked and assaulted.

7. Learned counsel submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 25.09.2017, but the accused persons – petitioners did not surrender in connection with the case and the efforts taken by the Investigating Officer to find out the petitioners went in vain because the petitioners were evading arrest. Such facts, according to learned counsel, are mentioned in course of investigation by the Investigating Officer, and only thereafter, on 29.3.2019 he filed an application in the court of learned Special Judge, Excise, to issue a warrant of arrest.

8. Learned counsel further submits that on 29.03.2019, no application for anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioners was pending in any court of law and this fact has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners in course of hearing, therefore, the Investigating Officer has rightly requested learned court below to issue a warrant of arrest.

9. As regards the process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the State submits that although the order dated 07.01.2020 does not talk