The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of a warrant of arrest must be based on a judicious assessment of the need for the warrant in the specific circumstances of the case, in line with the provisions of the law.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the first information report of Vigilance P.S. Case No.2 of 2011 (Special Case No.2 of 2011) registered under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/477A/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as order dated 07.02.2013 whereby and whereunder warrant of arrested has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that presently he will not be pressing the prayer whereby first information report has been sought to be quashed rather he would be pressing the matter for quashing of the order under which warrant of arrest has been issued and also the order whereby process has also been ordered to be issued under Section 82 Cr. P.C.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused in a Vigilance Case No. 2/2011, which has been lodged on the allegation that the accused persons including this petitioner in connivance with each other, put Jharkhand State Electricity Board to heavy loss by making payment of the huge amount to the Contractor M/s Ramjee Power Construction Limited. The Vigilance, having registered the case, took the matter for investigation and has been doing investigation right from the year 2011. During which period, the petitioner, being Director Finance, JSEB was discharging his duties. Suddenly, a requisition was filed by the Investigating Officer on 07.02.2013 before the court concerned, wherein it has been stated that an FIR has been lodged against the accused persons including this petitioner wherein allegation has been made that the accused persons in connivance with each other, put Jharkhand State Electricity Board to a heavy loss, by making payment to the Contractor M/s Ramjee Power Construction Limited, when award was given in his favour by the Arbitrator, who should not have been appointed and the petitioner was instrumental in getting an Arbitrator appointed. On such accusation, prayer was made to issue warrant of arrest against the accused persons. On such requisition, an order was passed on 07/02/2013, whereby warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued against the petitioners.

5. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order under which warrant of arrest has been issued by the court below never seems to be inconsonance with the provision under Section 73 Cr. P.C. as the warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued only taking into account the complicity found against the petitioner, which never fulfills the condition as has been enshrined in Section 73 Cr. P.C. and, thereby, the court certainly committed illegality in passing the impugned order.

6. In this regard, it was submitted that since execution of warrant does curtail the liberty of a person, it must not be issued mechanically. Only in the event of fulfillment of condition stipulated under Section 73 Cr. P.C., the court would be justified in issuing warrant of arrest against the accused persons. In other words, the Court should not have issued the warrant of arrest on such kind of requisition mechanically, rather the court should have adhered to the provision as contained in Section 73 Cr. P.C. while issuing warrant of arrest against a person. Since the impugned order has been passed without fulfillment of the conditions, as prescribed under Section 73 Cr. P.C., the impugned order suffers from illegality and is fit to be set aside.

7. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for Vigilance submits that ample evidences have already been collected against the petitioner and, thereby, if the court has issued warrant of arrest on the basis of the requisition submitted by the I.O., no illegality has been committed and that since this is the case where Jh