JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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 petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 09.04.2021 passed in Angara P.S.Case No.79 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No.6478 of 2015, pending in the court of Miss Nutan Ekka, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

4. In the year 2011, the First Information Report was lodged on the following premises:

“That, the case of the prosecution as alleged in the First Information Report inter alia is that in the year 2011, Madhu Chanda, elder sister of the informant, was married with one Nand Kishore Sahu, a resident of Burdhwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi. Her relationship with her husband ceased to exist, as such, she was pursuing her studies by staying in a hostel and side by side, she was also pursuing coaching classes. Due to non-availability of employment and due to lack of relationship with her husband, used to remain in sad condition. The dead body of the sister of the informant was found hanging with the tree. The informant suspected either her murder or suicide. Since last three months, the informant had no talk with her sister, as such, he is not in a position to disclose the reason of her death.”

5. The petitioner has not appeared in the concerned court and thereafter the impugned order dated 09.04.2021 has been passed whereby processes under section 82 Cr.P.C has been directed to be issued against the petitioner.

6. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not having any knowledge of the present case and earlier non-bailable warrant has not been served upon the petitioner. He submits that at the first time on 15.12.2020 the Investigating Officer has filed the petition for warrant of arrest against the petitioner. He submits that there is no reason assigned in the said petition of issuance of warrant of arrest. According to him, notice under section 41A Cr.P.C was also not served upon the petitioner at any point of time. He submits that the order dated 06.04.2021 of the said case, it reveals that the petition was filed by the Investigating Officer allowing the case diary in execution report of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and for issuance of processes under section 82 Cr.P.C. According to him, the petitioner is having two addresses; one of Gaya and another of Jamshedpur. The warrant has been issued at Gaya. He further submits that information was filed under section 84 Cr.P.C. before the concerned court by the brother and son of the petitioner disclosing that son of the petitioner is residing at Gaya and the petitioner is not residing. He further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Siddharth v. Uttar Pradesh and Another” reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 615 has made out the guidelines of arrest at the time of filing of charge sheet. According to him, issuance of warrant is serious in nature and if only the summons can do the things, there was no occasion to pass such order. On this premise, he submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed.

7. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State draws attention of the Court to the impugned order and submits that on both the places as disclosed by the petitioner the police has visited and the petitioner is evading the execution and the trial court after considering the entire case record, has passed the order.

8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 09.04.2021, it is crystal clear that the trial court has looked into the en