A Magistrate is justified in issuing a warrant of arrest against an accused person who has absconded for a long time and has come out of Court's custody without permission after surrendering.

Malay Kumar Basu, J.

This revisional application is directed against the order dated 12th April, 02 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Barasat thereby issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioners who were the accused persons in the criminal case in question namely G.R. 868/79 arising out of Barasat P.S. Case No. 11 dated 3.5.1979 under section 364 I.P.C. The relevant facts leading to the present state are in brief as follows. The said criminal case under section 364 I.P.C. were filed in 1979 F.LR. was lodged on 3rd May, 1979 alleging that one Judhisthir Ghosh, a grand-son of the informant Jyotish Chandra Ghosh had been taken away from his home by some unknown persons. The informant further stated that they suspected and apprehended that Judhistir might have been taken away by the miscreants with a motive of murdering him. Thereafter the police took up investigation. In the meantime the present petitioners were apprehending that they might be arrested and prayed for anticipatory bail before the sessions court of the District South 24 Parganas and obtained the same therefrom. But they did not surrender themselves before the Court of Magistrate till 1997. On 7th January, 1997 they surrendered before the Court by filing a petition of surrender, but curiously enough although the court did not pass any order on their petition for bail which they filed, they were found at large after that date and thereafter on the next date, that is, 21st February, 1997 the learned S.D.J.M. passed an order "filing the case for the present" on the ground that in spite of his definite direction neither the I.O. nor the de facto complainant had appeared before him and therefore no order should be passed on the F.R.T already submitted by the I.O. and in such circumstances the case was "filed for the present". Thereafter, against that order of the learned Magistrate dated 21st February, 1997 the de facto 'complainant Lakshmi Kanta Ghosh filed a revisional application before this High Court whereupon a single bench of this Court set aside that order and also the order dated 7th January, 1997 and directed the learned Magistrate to issue process against the accused persons of the case for their appearance and after procuring their attendance to pass an order in accordance with law including an order of commitment of the case to the court of sessions. After this order was received by the court below the learned Magistrate passed an order issuing warrant of arrest against the present petitioners for procuring their appearance. Being aggrieved by that order they have preferred the revisional application before this Court.

2. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioners has vehimently argued that in this case the learned Magistrate was not competent under the law to issue warrant of arrest in view of the reason that the petitioners being accused persons of this case took anticipatory bail as far back, as in 1987 when the decision of the Apex Court in K.L. Verma's case did not come into existence and under the legal principles prevailing at that point of time such accused persons having taken anticipatory bail had no obligation to surrender themselves before the Court of Magistrate, because the order granting such anticipatory bail was not for a limited period at that time. But after having perused the order-sheets of the learned Magistrate I find that the effect of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners has been no longer in force, once they surrendered themselves before the Court of Magistrate on 7th January, 1997. It goes without saying that the force of that order of the sessions court granting anticipatory bail to these accused persons came to an end, as soon as they surrendered before the Court of Magistrate. Therefore the question whether the warrant of arrest should have been issued against them or not is to be governed by the general law as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of procuring attendance of the accuse