ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned AC to GP 4 for the State and Mr. Saroj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant-respondent no. 5.

2. This application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:—

“(A) A writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s direction/s quashing the following:

(i) Order dated 04.06.2022 passed by the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st cum Special Judge, Lakhisarai, in Halsi Ramgarh Chowk P.S. Case No. 2 of 2022 whereby, the Ld. Court below has directed for publication of proclamation against the Petitioners as envisaged under Section 82 of Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter also referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’).

(B) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s direction/s for the following reliefs:

(i) To stay further proceeding in FIR being Halsi Ramgarh Chowk P.S. case no. 2 of 2022 pending before Ld. Additional District & Sessions judge 1st cum Special judge, Lakhisarai, till disposal of the instant case.

(ii) To declare the investigation done in F.I.R. being Halsi Ramgarh Chowk P.S. Case No. 2 of 2022 without jurisdiction rendering the entire investigation as null and void.

(C) To any other relief/s to which the petitioner is found entitled to.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he will confine his prayers to part (A) (i) under paragraph ‘1’ of the writ application. Thus, the prayers made in part (B) under paragraph ‘1’ are not pressed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order dated 04.06.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I at Lakhisarai in Halsi (Ramgarh) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022.

5. By this order, the learned court below has directed publication of proclamation against the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is in the teeth of the mandatory provision of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. It is submitted on the strength of the judgments of this Court in the case of Krishna Murari Yadav vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2005 (3) PLJR 746 and in the case of Usha Mishra vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 748 that the I.O. who filed an application seeking issuance of an order for proclamation should have filed an application on affidavit duly showing the steps taken by him to catch hold of the petitioners. It is submitted that the learned court below has not at all tried to find out as to whether the I.O. has taken efforts to execute the warrant of arrest. The case diary was not perused and nothing was pointed out to the court from the case diary. Referring to yet another judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar @ Anil Paswan vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2020 (2) BLJ 507, learned counsel submits that in the said case, this Court has discussed the mandatory nature of Section 82 Cr.P.C.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioners had filed an application on 12.04.2022 after serving a copy on the Special P.P. for the State in which they had brought to the notice of the learned court below that they have filed an anticipatory bail application in the Hon’ble High Court of Patna vide Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 647 of 2022 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 681 of 2022 and the same are pending consideration before the Court.

8. Today, learned counsel has informed that in both the Criminal Appeals (SJ), a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted interim protection to the petitioners recently and both the applications are pending.

9. It is, thus, submitted that the order dated 04.06.2022 has been passed in haste without following the procedures described under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.

10. Learned counsel for the informant-respondent no. 5 has defended the impugned order. It is his submission that only because the petitioners were before this Court seeking anticipatory bail, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the order dated 04.06.2022. Learned counsel submits that th