Anima Hazarika, J.

1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Saikia, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. The challenge made in this petition is to the order dated 12.7.2011 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S) ('SDM' for short), North Lakhimpur in GR Case No. 382/2010 under Sections 406/ 420, IPC arising out of North Lakhimpur PS Case No. 174/2010. The petitioner is a charge sheeted accused in the aforesaid case.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that coming to know about the registration of the PS case, she approached this Court by filing a bail application under Section 438 Cr. PC being registered and numbered as BA No. 2210/2010 and vide order dated 21.5.2010 this Court granted interim bail to the petitioner, which was subsequently made absolute vide order dated 16.6.2010. After obtaining the certified copies of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner had personally appeared before the Investigating Officer ('I/O' for short) and handed over the same to the I/O. Police did not record her statement as the matter between the informant and the petitioner was compromised by then. But surprisingly, after completion of the investigation of the North Lakhimpur PS Case No. 174/2010, police submitted charge sheet showing the petitioner as absconder. On the other hand, while submitting the charge sheet the police had also enclosed therewith the copies of the bail orders granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner. After receiving the charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (L) ('CJM' for short) North Lakhimpur vide order dated 11.7.2011 transferred the case to the Court of learned SDJM (S) North Lakhimpur for disposal. While doing so, the learned CJM (L), North Lakhimpur in the order dated 11.7.2011 showed the accused petitioner as absconder and accordingly, the learned SDJM vide order dated 12.7.2011 issued Non Bailable Warrant of Arrest ('NBWA' for short) against the petitioner fixing 12.8.2011 for appearance. It is the case of the petitioner that the learned trial Court ought not to have issued the NBWA against the petitioner without complying the condition prescribed under Section 82 of the Cr. PC.

3. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has recently come to know about the issuance of the NBWA. But, at no point of time, the petitioner has been served with the process of the Court, nor she was aware about the filing of the charge sheet against her. It has been further contended that the police had never visited her residence in search of her. The petitioner is very much present in her residential area alongwith her family members but the trial Court accepting the statements of the I/O has shown the petitioner as absconder and issued NBWA against her.

4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the impugned order referred to above was passed in non compliance of the provisions of law prescribed under Section 82 of the Cr. PC.

5. Mr. Mahanta further submits that the petitioner would appear before the learned trial Court on all the subsequent dates as fixed by the court.

6. The law regarding issuance of NBWA against an accused has been laid down by this Court in the case of Nazrul Islam v. State of Assam, 2008 (1) GLT 979, wherein this Court has held that while issuing P/A and NBWA certain conditions mentioned in Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr. PC are to be followed.

7. Further in a recent decision reported in 2011 (1) GLT 561, Kabir Ahmed (Md.) v. State of Assam, this Court has held that the police has no power to declare a person absconder.

8. The relevant portion of paragraph 3 of Kabir Ahmed (supra) is quoted hereunder:

3. The charge sheet was drawn on 31.5.10 being charge sheet No. 34/10 and the same was transferred to the learned Addl. CJM for necessary disposal on 12.7.10 when on the first d