JUDGMENT :

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders dated 08.02.2018, by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued, 26.06.2018, by which process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and 30.01.2019, by which process under Section 83 of the Code have been issued, against the petitioners, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Complaint Case No. 399 of 2016.

2. In this criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the points, which have been raised by the learned counsel are by way of challenge to the orders issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest and the orders by which process and order of attachment, respectively issued under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code.

3. The main contention of the petitioners is that the Court below, in a most mechanical manner issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. In the similar manner the process under section 82 of the Code and thereafter attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code have been issued. It is their contention that, even without receipt of the service report of bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest have been issued against the petitioners. Similarly, without there being any service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 of the Code has been issued. Further, without any service of the process under Section 82 of the Code, attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code has been issued. It is also the case of the petitioners that the processes are being issued in utter violation of the respective provisions laid down in the Code, i.e. Sections 73, 82 & 83 thereof, thus, these orders need to be set aside.

4. The petitioners also submit that the Court should have been satisfied that there is necessity to issue warrants and orders in terms of Sections 82 and 83 of the Code and the satisfaction should be recorded in the order itself. This recording would suggest that the court has applied its mind and has satisfied himself that the processes under Sections 82 of the Code and attachment order under Section 83 of the Code are necessary to be issued for procuring attendance of the accused. In this case, in a most mechanical manner the orders have been passed by the Court even without recording any satisfaction, which renders the impugned orders invalid. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that issuing a warrant of arrest is a very serious act, which directly affects the rights of an individual and while doing so, the Court has to be very cautious. It is submitted that only after fulfilling the mandatory prerequisites and after compliance of the provisions of the Code, these processes can be issued. It is further submitted that in absence of any subjective satisfaction, which must be based on materials on record, the impugned orders need to be set aside. They submit that consequence of order passed under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code is serious, thus, the orders passed under the aforesaid Sections must be passed judiciously and not mechanically.

5. Learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State, submits that as the petitioners failed to appear before the Court below, the Court had no other option but to issue warrants of arrest and thereafter, processes under Sections 82 of the Code and order of attachment under Section 83 of the Code. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders issuing bailable and non-bailable warrants of arrest and also the processes under Section 82 of the Code and order of attachment under Section 83 of the Code. He submits that when an accused fails to appear in Court, the Court, to procure his attendance, can take all coercive steps.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State at length. I have also heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 435 of 2019 (Mr. Jitendra S. Sin