The court emphasized the necessity of scrutinizing warrants and orders for proclamation, highlighting due process and lawful procedure must be followed.

1. This is an application under Art.227 of the Constitution read with S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing an order dated 24th September, 2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in connection with GR Case No.1458 of 2011 arising out of Sankrail Police Station Case No.159 of 2011 dated 26th June, 2011 corresponding to Special Case No.75 of 2019 under S.406/409/417/418/420/120B / 34 of the IPC.

2. On the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Howrah Zonal Office, Sankrail Police Station Case No.159 of 2011 dated 26th June, 2011 was registered against the present petitioner and other accused persons. On 7th February, 2013 the petitioner was arrested in connection with the above mentioned case and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah. On 1st Mach, 2013 he was granted bail. Charge - sheet was submitted against the present petitioner and other accused persons under the above mentioned penal provision on 26th August, 2018. On 24th September, 2018 the petitioner and six other co - accused persons failed to appear before the learned lower court. The learned Chief Judicial magistrate cancelled the order of bail of the petitioner and other absentee accused persons, forfeited the bail amount and issued non - bailable warrant against them. Subsequently, on 29th July, 2019 the case was transferred to the court of the learned Special Judge at Howrah for trail. The case was renumbered on fresh registration as Special Case No.75 of 2019.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that police authority did not submit any non - execution report of warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner and other accused persons. It is also contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while issuing non - bailable warrant of arrest did not come to a specific finding to the effect that there is reason to believe that the accused will not voluntarily appear in court; secondly, the police authorities are unable to find the accused to serve summons and thirdly, the accused could cause harm to someone if not placed into custody immediately.

4. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Special Judge acted illegally and material irregularity in passing a composite order of proclamation and attachment without observing the steps stated in S.82 and S.83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . On such ground the petitioner has prayed for stating aside the impugned dated 24th September, 2018 and all subsequent orders.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others reported in 2007 (12) SCC 1 : (AIR 2008 SC 251). It is held in paragraph 54 of the above report that as far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non - bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and remifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the criminal complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.

6. Thus, in Inder Mohan Goswami (AIR 2008 SC 251) (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated uncontrolled and often irrelevant exercise of magisterial power of issuance of non - bailable warrant without considering the service reports of summons.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner first draws my attention to the order dated 24th September, 2