Warrants must be issued in accordance with law, with proper compliance with statutory provisions and satisfaction recorded in terms of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been taken 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 defects are ignored.

4. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the FIR being Murhu P.S. Case No.90 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.535 of 2014, dated 30.11.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer to the orders dated 24.06.2015, 28.03.2016, 19.07.2017, 05.05.2018, 16.11.2018 and 18.02.2019 whereby bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant twice, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant respectively have been issued against the petitioner in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.90 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.535 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Khunti.

6. Mr. Soren, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of a motor accident in which the petitioner is also injured. He further submits that the petitioner has appeared in the court and obtained bail and thereafter the petitioner has not received any notice and in a mechanical way, the impugned orders have been passed. He also submits that the impugned orders themselves suggest that the execution report was not there and in spite of that bailable warrant, twice non-bailable warrant, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant have been issued against the petitioner.

7. Mr. Ojha, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

8. The Court has perused the order dated 25.05.2015 which suggests that the service report of the issued summons has not been received and by the next order dated 24.06.2015, bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner. The order dated 22.01.2016 suggests that execution report of bailable warrant has not been received and in spite of that non-bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner vide order dated 28.03.2016 and vide order dated 19.07.2017 again non-bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner. The process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner vide order dated 05.05.2018. In the said order, it has been recorded that the service report of the issued warrant has not been received and in spite of that the order dated 05.05.2018 has been passed. The said order has not been passed in accordance with law. There is no satisfaction recorded in terms of the Cr.P.C. In Form-4 of Cr.P.C, statutory provision has not been complied with, as held by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712. The subsequent orders dated 16.11.2018 and 18.02.2019 shall also not survive in view of illegality in the order dated 05.05.2018.

9. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 24.06.2015, 28.03.2016, 19.07.2017, 05.05.2018, 16.11.2018 and 18.02.2019 passed in connection with Murhu P.S. Case No.90 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No.535 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Khunti are, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh, in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.