17.12.2025 Sl.No.187 Court No. 3 SK/AGM IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRR 573 of 2025 In the matter of: Manoranjan Roy Pakhadhara ….. petitioner.

Mr. Subhasish Misra Mr. Satyajit Paul Mr. Rounak Ghosh.

….. for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditi Sankar Chakraborty. Ld. APP Mr. A. Sarkar.

… for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved due to issurance of warrant of arrest against him by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mathabhange, Cooch Behar Special Court under the POCSO Act vide order dated 1.8.2025 in POCSO Case No. 23 of 2025.

He submits that the law is now sell settled that bailable warrant can be issued against an accused person who has been charged with an offence bearing punishment of less than seven years and that too only after several attempts to serve him with the notice.He submits further that notice has neither been served upon the accused person nor any of his family members.

In such circumstances, issuance of warrant of arrest on the very first date of non-service report of notice stands contrary to the settled law as above.

He seeks that the present revision be allowed by setting aside the order of the learned trial Court for issuance of warrant of arrest.

Mr. Sarkar who generally appears for the state is present in Court and he is requested to represent the state in this matter.

According to him the notice which was issued against the present petitioner could not be served upon the petitioner and that the petitioner is required to be present in Court.

Having heard both and perusing the materials on record, it appears that the Court has recorded in order dated 19th July, 2025 that the accused person/ present petitioner has been absconding. On the following date ,i.e., 1.8.2025, the Court has issued the warrant of arrest against the present petitioner.

Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, I find no justifiable reason to keep the instant revision pending any further.

Let the present revision be disposed of with the following directions:-

i. The impugned order dated 1.8.2025 is set aside.

ii. Let the petitioner be present in Court in response to the notice issued by the learned trial Court, positively within a period of seven days from the date of this order.

iii. Needless is to say that the Court shall proceed in accordance with law in case the petitioner fails to comply with the directions made in this revision as above.

With the directions as above, the revision application is disposed of.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J. )