IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Yadvendra Singh, Son of Rukum Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through ACB - Opp. Party
Cr.M.P. No. 2478 of 2021
Decided On : 01-11-2021
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 82 and 482 – Employment and Service matter - Executive Engineer - Amassed disproportionate income - Anticipatory bail application - Petitioner that allegation against petitioner is that petitioner in capacity of Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Ramgarh cum Executive Engineer, N.R.E.P., amassed disproportionate income of 82.31% to known source of his income during check period - It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that earlier non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner by the same court and subsequently, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was made but same was quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.432 of 2018 on ground that said order does not contain any reason and it was observed that Special Judge be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law - It is then submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that at various stages of investigation, petitioner appeared before Investigating Officer - It is next submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Investigating Officer submitted a requisition before learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest after quashing by coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition – Held, Court is of considered view that subsequent issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest with a direction to Investigating Officer to submit execution report returnable within specified date with reference to order passed by coordinate bench of this court in said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition need not be interfered with only on ground that it has not specifically been mentioned in impugned order that petitioner is evading his arrest more so because there is no material in record to suggest that petitioner appeared before Investigating Officer at any point of time during investigation and that material in record suggest that Investigating Officer requires presence of petitioner before him for purpose of conducting necessary investigation in case and learned trial court has recorded its satisfaction in impugned order that it is essential to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against petitioner - It is also pertinent to mention here that returnable date of these non-bailable warrant of arrest expires today - Criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Vigilance Case No.57 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.54 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi has been pleased to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner filed anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No.2981 of 2017 before a coordinate Bench of this Court which was rejected vide order dated 13.11.2017 and in connection with the selfsame case, earlier also Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.432 of 2018 was filed before this Court which was allowed by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.02.2018 and the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was quashed but the order issuing the warrant of arrest against the petitioner consequent upon which the said proclamation under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued remained intact.
It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in capacity of Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Ramgarh cum Executive Engineer, N.R.E.P., Ramgarh, amassed disproportionate income of 82.31% to the known source of his income during the check period. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner by the same court and subsequently, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was made but the same was quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.432 of 2018 on the ground that the said order does not contain any reason and it was observed that the Special Judge be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that at various stages of the investigation, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Investigating Officer submitted a requisition on 31.08.2021 before the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest after quashing by the coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.432 of 2018, of the order dated 04.01.2018 passed in the same case by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi whereby order for proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was made. It is then submitted that in the impugned order, the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi has mentioned that the Investigating Officer has prayed for an order of warrant of arrest and the same was accompanied with the case diary, memo of evidence, copy of sanction order for prosecution of the accused-petitioner. The Learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi has recorded in the impugned order that earlier non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner was issued and vide order dated 16.02.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.432 of 2018, the said order dated 04.01.2018 by which proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued has been quashed and after going through the record, it appeared to the trial court that it is essential to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the said accused and it allowed the prayer of Investigating Officer and issued fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner as prayed for with a direction to submit an execution report with the returnable date that is on 01.11.2021.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required but the moment the Investigating Officer came to know that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner is going to be solemnized on 28.11.2021, the Investigating Of
Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors reported in AIR 2008 SC 251
The judgment established that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant should follow proper procedure and judicial guidelines, including the recording of satisfaction by the court.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and must be supported by specific reasons to protect individual liberties under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants requires specific justifications and must not occur routinely; individual liberty should be prioritized unless necessitated by compelling circumstances.
Non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely and must be justified with specific reasons, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public interest.
(1) In bailable offence, right of accused to get bail is absolute and indefeasible right and courts have no discretion in granting bail.(2) Criminal Courts should consider bail applications particula....
A legitimate prosecution cannot be stifled in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.