The issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamations must adhere to legal standards, including the necessity of an execution report and clear directives for appearance.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash the orders dated 10.09.2024 and 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with G. (F) Case No. 1684 of 2019 whereby and where under, respectively non-bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners who are the accused persons of the said case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not press the prayer to quash the order dated 19.06.2024 whereby and where under, bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners. Hence, the prayer to quash the order dated19.06.2024 is rejected as not pressed.

4. The brief fact of the case is that on 10.09.2024 out of 15 accused persons of the case, four were in attendance and rest nine were represented through their lawyers which was allowed; the rest two accused persons were absent. The execution report of bailable warrant of arrest was not received but still the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh directed to issue non-bailable inter alia warrant of arrest against the petitioners. On 14.11.2024 on being satisfied that the petitioners were evading their arrest, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since admittedly the execution report of bailable warrant of arrest was not received by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh, the said Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh ought not have issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner vide order dated 10.09.2024. It is next submitted that the said learned Judicial Magistrate committed an illegality, in passing the order dated 14.11.2024, by directing issue of the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without fixing any time and place for appearance of the petitioners, only by mentioning the date for their appearance, hence, the same is also not sustainable in law. It is, therefore, submitted that the orders dated orders dated 10.09.2024 and 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with G (F) Case No. 1684 of 2019 be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the very fact that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh has issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that since the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh issued the bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners but certainly, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh has committed a grave illegality by passing order for issue of non- bailable warrant of arrest without receipt of the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners; when there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner was evading his arrest. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 10.09.2024 is not sustainable in law.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh in connection with G (F) Case No. 1684 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.

9. So f