JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General No. IV for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna who while disposing of a bail application of an accused namely, Ranjeet Rai has passed an order and has directed the office to issue warrant (non bailable) against the sole named accused General Manager R. Jai Prakash alias J. P. in the concluding part of the bail order. 3. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that this part of the order while disposing of the bail application of yet another accused is in breach of Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that the investigation in the matter is still going on. No doubt the petitioner has been made an accused but at no point of time police has filed any requisition for issuance of warrant of arrest against him. In fact, the petitioner has co-operated in the investigation and his statement has been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also urged that petitioner is a responsible person holding a responsible post and he is not running away from law nor he did evade process of law at any point of time. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that this part of the order has serious consequences for him even before the investigation has reached its finality and evidence has come against him of his complicity. The stage of filing chargesheet probably has not yet reached because the police is looking at all the dimensions of crime in question. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Nalini Kant Agrawal v. State of Bihar 2003 (1) PLJR 350 . The decision is based on the ratio of Hon ble Supreme Courts decision that in terms of the provision of Section 73 the power by the Magistrate has to be exercised when accused of a non-bailable offence is evading arrest. 5. Nothing has been stated on behalf of the State of Bihar that the petitioner is a absconder from law and is evading arrest in the matter. 6. 5. Nothing has been stated on behalf of the State of Bihar that the petitioner is a absconder from law and is evading arrest in the matter. 6. Keeping in mind the provision of Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the ratio laid down in the case of Nalini Kant Agrawal (supra) the petitioner has made out a case for quashing part of the order relating to him passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna which is the order dated 16.1.2009. The last part of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing issuance of warrant of arrest is hereby quashed. 7. However, it is made clear that in case material and evidence emerges against the petitioner it will neither prevent the police from filing a requisition against the petitioner nor is the Magistrate in question is precluded from giving appropriate direction for investigation to the Investigation Officer in the matter under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The application is allowed with the above observation. 9. Office is directed to return the original record along with case diary to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna forthwith.