IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2101 of 2024 Afsar Sk @ Absar Shekh @Absar S.K age about 31 years, Son of Late Manik Sk @Nohu Sk, Resident of Gadarpara, P.O. & P.S.-

Mahshpur, Dist.-Pakur.

...... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Md. Yasir Arafat, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Ganjhu, Addl. PP P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer for quashing the orders dated 28.03.2022 and 28.09.2022 by which, the proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC and the attachment order under Section 83 of CrPC has been issued against the petitioner respectively, in connection with Maheshpur P.S. case no. 118 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 55 of 2023.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the accused person of Maheshpur P.S. case no. 118 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 55 of 2023. On 28.03.2022, the I.O. of the case prayed for issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC before the court of learned JMFC, Pakur. Upon perusal of the record, learned JMFC, Pakur was satisfied that though the I.O. of the case has taken sufficient efforts regarding arrest of the petitioner, as mentioned in different paragraphs of the case diary, the petitioner who is the named accused person of the case, involved inter alia for the offences punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 67 A of the I.T. Act, 2000 but the petitioner is absconding to evade his arrest and by being thus satisfied, the proclamation was issued fixing the time and place for appearance of the petitioner. Even after proclamation was made, as the petitioner did not appear on 28.09.2022, the I.O. of the case made a prayer for attachment of the property of the petitioner, which was allowed by a reasoned order by learned SDJM, Pakur. The petitioner filed the Anticipatory Bail Petition no. 40 of 2022, which was rejected on 15.03.2022, by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur. The petitioner then filed the Anticipatory Bail Application no. 3638 of 2022 before this Court but it was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.08.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without applying the judicial mind, the learned Magistrate has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC and the attachment order under Section 83 of CrPC respectively on 28.03.2022 and 28.09.2022 , hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. Learned Addl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality either in the order dated 28.03.2022 or in the order dated 28.09.2022 by which respectively the proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC and the attachment order under Section 83 of CrPC has been issued against the petitioner, hence, this petition being without any merit be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is an accused of the case involving the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 67 A of the I.T. Act and he is absconding and concealing himself, to evade his arrest.

7. After going through the materials available in the record, this Court is satisfied that learned Magistrate has applied his mind, as is evident from the impugned order itself and after considering all the attending circumstances, has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC and the attachment order under Section 83 of CrPC, hence, this Court does not find any illegality in the said orders. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 28.03.2022 and 28.09.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Pakur and learned