Advocates:
['N JOTENDRO', '', 'MURTAZA AHMED', 'A JANKINATH SHARMA', 'PP', '', 'Y ASHANG']

Item –41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

AB No.35 of 2021

Pusam Altaf Ali @ Bungo, aged about 32 years, s/o Md. Rasid Ali, a

resident of Pangong Makhong Thangbrijao, PO Singjamei & PS

Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur-795008.

…. Petitioner

- Versus –

The Officer-In-Charge, Irilbung Police Station PO Singjamei & PS

Irilbung, Imphal East District, Manipur-795005.

.... Respondent

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN

24.05.2022

[1]

Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner

and Mr.Y Ashang, learned PP for the respondent.

[2]

Pursuant to the registration of the case in FIR No.16(3) 2021

IBG-PS by the respondent police for the offences u/s 21(b) ND & PS Act,

the prosecution has filed application before the Court of Special Judge,

ND & PS, Manipur under Cril.Misc.Case No.87 of 2021 seeking to issue

JOHN

TELEN

KOM

Digitally

signed by

JOHN TELEN

KOM

Date:

2022.05.26

15:26:22

+05'30'

non-bailable warrant against the petitioner for declaring the petitioner as

proclaimed offender. Based on the application filed by the prosecution,

the learned Special Judge (ND & PS), Manipur has passed an order

under section 70 of the Cr.PC as follows:

OFFICE OF THE

SPL. COURT (ND & PS), MANIPUR,

LAMPHELPAT.

Form No.2 of Code of Criminal Procedure

Form No.2.

Warrant of Arrest

(Section 70)

To

The Officer in Charge,

Irilbung P.S.

WHEREAS MD. ALTAF @ BUNGO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

S/o

Md.

Rasid

Ali

of

Pangong

Makhong

Thangbrijao,

PO

Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung, District Imphal East, Manipur stands

charged with the offence of Section 21(b) ND & PS Act(state the

offence), you are hereby directed to arrest the said Md. @ Bungo

and to produce him before me. Herein fail not.

Dated, this 25^th day of june, 2021.

[3]

After passing this order dated 25.06.2021, the learned Special

Judge (ND& PS), Manipur by issuing the warrant of arrest against this

petitioner, he has approached the learned Special Judge by filing

application in Cril. Misc. (AB) Case No.03 of 2021 under section 438

Cr.P.Cseeking for granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

[4]

On considering the nature of anticipatory bail, the learned

Special Judge, (ND & PS), Manipur has dismissed the application on

07.07.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this present anticipatory

bail application before this Court seeking the very same prayer as sought

for in Cril. Misc.(AB)No.03 of 2021. Therefore, the learned senior counsel

for the petitioner represented that this petitioner is innocent and not

committed any offence and hence, he is entitled for seeking anticipatory

bail and prayed for granting of anticipatory bail.

[5]

Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned public prosecutor represented that

once the warrant of arrest has been issued under section 70 of Cr.P.Cby

the learned Special Judge, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to

approach the very same Court and to file an application u/s 70(2) of

Cr.PC seeking to recall the warrant issued by the learned Special Judge,

(ND& PS), but without doing so, the petitioner has approached this Court

and filed the present application under section 438 of the Cr.P.Cwhich is

not maintainable and he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

[6]

Considering the arguments advanced by both sides, it is made

clear that pursuant to the application filed by the prosecution seeking to

issue warrant of arrest by declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender,

the learned Special Judge, (ND & PS), Imphal, by an order dated

25.06.2021 had issued warrant of arrest against this petitioner under

section 70 of Cr.PC and once warrant of arrest was issued, the petitioner

ought to have approach the very same learned judge by filing application

under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C for recalling the warrant issued against

him.

[7]

As per the provision under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C which is

read as follows.

“70(2). Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is

cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.”

[8]

Therefor