The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper satisfaction and compliance with legal parameters before issuing non-bailable warrants and authorizing detention.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Altamash Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Spl.P.P. 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. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 20.12.2019, 25.05.2021 and 18.08.2021, by which, non-bailable warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner, in connection with S.T. No. 26 of 2021, arising out of Serengdag P.S. Case No. 05 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Lohardaga.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no execution report on the record and by a cryptic order, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner by order dated 20.12.2019. He submits that the process under Section 82 is also not in terms of the law laid down in the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustum & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.

5. Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Spl.P.P., appearing for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and this case is fit to be dismissed.

6. On perusal of the impugned order dated 20.12.2019, it transpires that the execution report of notice is not disclosed and the Sections, against which, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner are punishable upto 7 years.

7. In the case of Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar and Anr., reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-11 to 13 held as follows:-

“11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions:

11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;

11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the ca