The two petitioners by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed to quash the order dated 23.01.2015 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro whereby non bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners without following the ingredients of Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) and complying the mandates and the guidelines given by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2. The factual aspects, which is relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that after getting some secret information that in the hard coke factory of the petitioners coal illegally extracted from the forest area has been stocked. The informant of this case conducted raid in the factory premises but after seeing the police party the persons inside the factory fled away and the informant found 100 tones of steam coal. On enquiry, the informant came to know that the petitioners are the owners of the factory and they are indulged in illegal coal business. Whereafter Mahuatand P.S. Case No.74 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.1315 of 2014 was instituted under Sections 413/414/34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a requisition before the court for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioners and the court below vide order dated 23.01.2015 directed to issue warrant of arrest.

4. Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order by which warrant of arrest has been issued clearly stipulates the non-application of judicial mind of the court below as it was passed without following the ingredients of Section 73 of the Code as well as the mandates given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Indra Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttranchal & Ors.; (2007) 12 SCC 1. It was also submitted that even if the petitioners have committed any offence which are non bailable in nature, the court at the first instance has to issue summons and it appears from the order sheet of the court below enclosed with this writ application that no summon was issued or any step was taken by the Investigating Officer before praying for issuance of non bailable warrant. Hence, the order impugned is fit to be quashed.

5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the State seriously contended that as the petitioners were evading their arrest, the requisition was filed by the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant of arrest and it is wrong to say that order impugned lacks the application of judicial mind.

6. Having heard the counsels and after going through the records of the case and specially the order sheet of the court below which is enclosed with the writ application, I find that the learned court below without applying judicial mind in a mechanical way passed the order of issuance of warrant. The F.I.R. of this case was received in the court of A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro on 14.11.2014 and only on the next date i.e. 23.01.2015 the Investigating Officer filed a requisition for issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused persons which was allowed. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttranchal & Ors.; [2008(1) JLJR 82 (S.C.)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the same situation observed in paragraphs 50 to 55 as follows:-

“50. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants.

51. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilized society. Sometimes in the l