The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicial discretion and satisfaction in issuing non-bailable warrants, as well as the need to balance individual rights and societal interests in the issuance of warrants.

Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Sahay, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 03.06.2014 passed by Smt. Nirja Ashri, Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat whereby and whereunder warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner as well as the order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the same Court by which process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner in connection with Gomia P. S. Case No. 70 of 2014 corresponding to G. R. No. 575 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The FIR which was instituted on the basis of a Fard Beyan of the informant reveals that on 20.05.2014, the nephew of the informant namely, Safiullah Ansari was assaulted by one Wahid Ansari and on getting such information when the informant went to the house of the Wahid Ansari to complain about the alleged assault, several accused persons armed with deadly weapons assembled near the house of the informant and assaulted several persons including the informant as a result of which the nephew of the informant died.

4. After institution of the case, the Investigating Officer made an application before the learned Court below for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner and vide order dated 03.06.2014 warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. Subsequent thereto vide -2-order dated 17.06.2014 process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner was also issued.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders by submitting that the order dated 03.06.2014 by which warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner shows total non-application of mind on the part of the concerned Magistrate. He further submits that the subsequent issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 17.06.2014 also reveals that the same was issued in a mechanical manner. He therefore submits that both the orders being non-speaking orders are liable to be quashed.

6. The learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, while relying on the counter affidavit filed by the informant has submitted that an application was made by the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant of arrest as the petitioner was evading arrest and thus, the learned Court below did not commit any error of law while passing an order of warrant of arrest against the petitioner. He has further submitted that so far as the order dated 17.06.2014 is concerned, it would be evident from a perusal of the said order that the same was on the basis of a petition filed by the Investigating Officer with the execution report of the warrant of arrest issued and as such no illegality can be attributed to the learned court below while passing such order.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant and after going through the records, I find that on the requisition of the Investigating Officer warrant of arrest was issued on 03.06.2014 and the said order does not reflect the basis for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner. It seems that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat had mechanically on the application of the Investigating Officer passed the said order dated 03.06.2014. Immediately after the completion of 2 weeks from the date of issuance of warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued on 17.06.2014 which also does not disclose the reasons for issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and the said order also appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner. In the case of “Vikas Vs. State of Rajasthan” reported in (2014) 3 SCC 321, while enumerating the circumstances in which a -3-non-bailable warrant can be issued and also considering