JUDGMENT :

Heard the petitioner in person and Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The present petition has been filed for direction upon the respondents particularly respondent nos. 2 and 3 to send to this Hon’ble Court all records appertaining to issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest as against these warrantee named below :-

i. Kashi Nath Mukherjee

ii. Abhay Kumar Mishra

iii. Malay Kumar Nandi

iv. Aditya Kumar Banerjee

v. Gautam Das

Further prayer has been made as to what action for apprehending them pursuant to the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued as against them vide order dated 24.08.2021, has been taken.

4. Petitioner appearing in person submits that earlier he has moved W.P.(Cr). No. 429 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 27.09.2019 on the assurance that investigation shall be completed within two months. He further submits that the investigation was not completed, hence he filed Contempt Case (Civil) No. 145 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2021 on the assurance of S.S.P., Ranchi that the investigation will be completed at the earliest. He submits that now the concerned court has issued N.B.W. on 24.08.2021 against the accused persons and inspite of that no action has been taken. He draws attention of the Court to para 14 of the writ petition and submits that one of the accused persons namely, Abhay Kumar Mishra was present in Jagarnathpur police station on 28.08.2021 inspite of issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest and he has not been arrested. The petitioner appearing in person relied upon judgment in the case of “Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others” reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 particularly para 24 & 25 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“24. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein original accused original writ petitioners have submitted that as held by this Court in catena of decisions, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are very wide. It is submitted that as held by this Court, the High Court may exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is submitted therefore in exercise of its wholesome powers, the High Court would be justified and entitled to quash the proceedings. It is submitted that similarly the High Court would be justified and entitled to stay the further investigation and even grant an interim order of stay of arrest and/or no coercive measures to be taken.

25. It is submitted that in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, it is observed by this Court that the High Court in its inherent powers is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.”

5. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner appearing in person submits that this writ petition is maintainable.

6. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there are remedies available to the petitioner under Code of Criminal Procedure and this petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel submits that one of the accused has approached before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1990 of 2021 and that case is coming in the month of October, 2021. He submits that there is interim protection so far the petitioner in that case is concerned