The deliberate misuse of bail and failure to challenge previous orders can justify the issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., while the lack of reason and material can lead to the setting aside of process issuance under Section 83 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Kumar Harsh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State of Jharkhand.

3. This Criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of Chakulia Shyam – Sundarpur P.S. Case No.24 of 2012 dated 21.03.2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.117 of 2012 registered under Sections 414/420/34 IPC read with Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 26/33 of Indian Forest Act, 1972 said to be pending before the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila.

4. From the records of this case, it appears that vide order dated 16.10.2020 the petitioner had confined his relief to challenge to the order dated 12.08.2015 whereby the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was issued and also challenge to order dated 15.10.2015 whereby process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. was issued.

5. The petitioner had originally prayed for the following relief:

(i) Quashing of the order dated 18.03.2015 whereby the bail and the bail bond of the petitioner has been cancelled; for quashing of the order dated 15.05.2015 whereby the application for recall of order dated 18.03.2015 has been rejected;

A further prayer has been made to make the anticipatory bail granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as permanent.

(ii) Quashing order dated 12.08.2015; whereby and whereunder, process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued and also for quashing of order dated 15.10.2015, whereby learned court has also issued process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 16.10.2020 to submit that in the present proceedings only the issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. are under challenge. He also submits that the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 12.08.2015 without recording any satisfaction and the process under Section 83 was issued vide order dated 15.10.2015 again without recording any reason. The learned counsel also submits that the condition precedent for issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were not satisfied.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the learned court below whereby it has been recorded that that the petitioner was physically present and on the next date on 18.03.2015 on account of absence of the petitioner, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued. He also refers to the order dated 15.05.2015 whereby the petition for recall of order dated 18.03.2015 was also dismissed. The learned counsel submits that the cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrant is not under challenge in the present proceedings and the petitioner is aggrieved by only two orders i.e., order dated 12.08.2015 whereby the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and order dated 15.10.2015 whereby the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was issued.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 303 of 2019 on 19.12.2019 and Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 on 27.04.2020. He submits that the mandatory conditions of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were required to be satisfied as the same has serious interference in personal liberty of a person.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 (Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others) which has been followed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 decided on 27.04.2020. He has referred to Form No. 4 appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure and has placed Sections 82 and 83 to buttress his argument that the condition precedent has no