JUDGEMENT 1. In the instant application the petitioners pray for restraining the respondents from attaching their property of the petitioner situated at 13/2, Gharaunda, Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, P.S.- S.K. Puri, Patna which is self-acquired property of the petitioners and accused Rajesh Bhardwaj of Ara G.R.P.S. Case No. 73 of 2007 has no concern with the said property. 2. Before dealing with the issues involved in this case, the facts in brief is being noticed. One Virendra Prasad Singh, the informant, resident of Kankarbagh, Patna lodged a written report on 6.12.2007 with the Rail Police, Ara giving rise to Ara G.R.P.S. Case No. 73 of 2007 under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 120B of the Penal Code. In his written report the informant stated that her daughter Sonu, aged about 20 years, had affairs with one Rajesh Bhardwaj son of the petitioners. They used to regularly talk for hours on phone and mobile. In the night of 30.11.2007 at 10 P.M., the aforesaid Rajesh Bhardwaj took the informants daughter Sonu on his motorcycle from his Patna residence situated at Kankarbagh, which was also witnessed by his domestic servants Baiju and Dharmendra. tn course of enquiry, the informant learnt from his brother-in-law Dr.Sanjeev, that Sonu called her Mausi Dr. Anita at 12.30 A.M. in night of 30.11.2007/1.12.2007 to inform that she is going out with Rajesh and will return after marriage. On 1.12.2007 at 7.15 A.M., the GRP, Ara, informed him that the dead body of his daughter is lying on railway track. 3. Prior to the institution of aforesaid regular case, post mortem of the body was done and U.D. Case bearing no. 42/07 dated 1.12.2007 was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police on 25.2.2008 sub-milled a petition before the Judicial Magistrate Railway, Ara, that a case under Section 306 of the Penal Code is made out against accused Rajesh Bhardwaj and a prayer for issuance of warrant of arrest was also made. The accused Rajesh Bhardwaj filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur which was disposed of on 18.3.2008 and thereafter on 26.3.2008 by this court vide Cr. Misc. No. 13 of 2008. Subsequently on requisition of police, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued by order dated 20.3.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate Railway, Ara. The proclamation was pasted on Anandpuri resident of the petitioners on 27.3.2008. Misc. No. 13 of 2008. Subsequently on requisition of police, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued by order dated 20.3.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate Railway, Ara. The proclamation was pasted on Anandpuri resident of the petitioners on 27.3.2008. On coming to know of pasting of order of proclamation on their house, the petitioners filed an objection before the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Ara on 27.3.2008, stating that the same is their self-acquired property and it does not belong to Rajesh Bhardwaj at all. On 11.4.2008, the Investigating Officer filed a petition under Section 83 Cr.P.C, for attachment of the aforesaid property. Though the Railway Judicial Magistrate had fixed 8.5.2008, for hearing the objections filed by the petitioners, he however, ordered issuance of processes of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. on 28.4.2008 itself. A copy of the objection petition and various orders has been brought on record by filing supplementary affidavit on 2.5.2008. 5. Learned counsel assails the aforesaid order issuing processes of attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. on two counts; firstly the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued process on 28.4.2008, when he had already posted the objection petition filed by the petitioner for hearing on 8.5.2008. Secondly Section 83 Cr.P.C. provides for attachment of property, either moveable or immoveable or both belonging to proclaimed offender and not of a person who is not an accused much less a proclaimed offender. 6. Elaborating his points, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the house in Anandpuri sought to be attached were purchased by the petitioners in Anandpuri through two registered sale deeds in the year 1990 and 1991 as contained in Annexure-6. Subsequently they built a house, being Holding No. 13/2 in Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, P.S.-S.K. Puri, Patna. He submits that the son of the petitioners Rajesh Bhardwaj is a major and has no share in the property of 13/2, Anandpuri, Patna, which is a self- acquired property. 7. Learned counsel further submits that a citizen cannot be deprived of his property without due procedure of law. Section 83 Cr.P.C. provides for attachment of property of an accused, who is a proclaimed offender. Furthermore, law does not enjoin that a person whose property is wrongly being attached should wait till such time, the same is attached and damaged. 8. Mr. Section 83 Cr.P.C. provides for attachment of property of an accused, who is a proclaimed offender. Furthermore, law does not enjoin that a person whose property is wrongly being attached should wait till such time, the same is attached and damaged. 8. Mr. M.S. Madhup, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has challenged the contentions of the petitioners and also raised issue of maintainability of this application. He submits that the petition is prematured and law does not provide preattachment hearing under Section 83 Cr.P.C. The remedy available to the petitioner is under Section 84 Cr.P.C, which provides that if a person is aggrieved by the attachment he can file an objection within six months thereof. He submits that the property at 13/2, Anandpuri, Patna is rightly being attached as the petitioners son who is an accused in a non-bailable offence is proclaimed offender and evading arrest. The witnesses have supported the allegations against him. His anticipatory bail has been rejected up to Honble Supreme Court, still he has not surrendered before the court of law. The postal and other address given by Rajesh Bhardwaj bears the same address, as has been attached by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 28.4.2008. 9. It would be appropriate to quote Sections 83 and 84 Cr.P.C. which runs as under: "83. Attachment of property of person absconding.(1) The Court issuing a proclamation under section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable, or both, belonging to the proclaimed person; Provided that where at the time of the issue of the proclamation the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court, it may order the attachment simultaneously with the issue of the proclamation. 84. Claims and objections to attachment. 84. Claims and objections to attachment. (1) If any claim is preferred to, or objection made to the attachment of, any property attached under Section 83, within six months from the date of such attachment, by any person other than the proclaimed person, on the ground that the claimant or objector has an interest in such property, and that such interest is not liable to attachment under Section 83, the claim or objection shall be inquired into, and may be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part : Provided that any claim preferred or objection made within the period allowed by this sub-section may, in the event of the death of the claimant or objector, be continued by his legal representative." 10. It would appear from bare perusal of the aforesaid quoted provision that Section 83 Cr.P.C. provides for attachment of any property moveable or immoveable or both, belonging to the proclaimed person. Section 84 Cr.P.C. provides that any person other than the proclaimed person, having interest in such property, which is not liable to be attachment under Section 83, can file an objection within six months from the date of attachment. The provision mandates that such objection should be made not later than six months from the date of attachment. 11. As the order of attachment has been issued under Section 83 Cr.P.C. and the petitioners objection, which is also on record, has yet not been disposed of by the learned Magistrate, this Court does not find appropriate to go into the merit of the objection or issue of pre-attachment hearing. 12. Section 83(3) Cr.P.C. provides the mode by which a debt and moveable property can be attached. Sub-section (4) of Section 83 provides for mode of attachment of immoveable property. 13. It is not in dispute that though the Magistrate has fixed 8.5.2008 as a date for hearing on the objection petition, still he issued process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. on 28.4.2008. Learned Magistrate ought not have passed an order for issuance of process under section 83 Cr.P.C. on 24.8.2008, when he himself fixed 8.5.2008 as a date of hearing of the objection. 14. The petitioners case is that the property sought to be attached at Anandpuri are their self-acquired property and in support of the same they have filed two registered sale deeds of the year 1990 and 1991. 14. The petitioners case is that the property sought to be attached at Anandpuri are their self-acquired property and in support of the same they have filed two registered sale deeds of the year 1990 and 1991. It is further their case that their son Rajesh Bhardwaj who is an accused in the instant case has no concern or share in the aforesaid property. 15. Though right to property is no longer a fundamental right but nevertheless Article 300A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. 16. In the above circumstances, this court directs the learned Magistrate to dispose of the objection petition filed by the petitioners after hearing both the parties and till then the restrained order dated 2.5.2008, passed by a Bench of this court would be operative. Thus, the order of attachment dated 28.4.2008 would be subject to final adjudication on the petition of objection pending before the learned Railway Magistrate. It is expected that the learned Magistrate would dispose of the objection petition filed by the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 17. Before parting with the record of this case, this court hopes and believes that the petitioners being the parents of the accused would endeavour and do all within their prowess to prevail upon and persuade their son Rajesh Bhardwaj to surrender before the court of law, as his anticipatory bail has been rejected up to Honble Apex Court. 18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.