ORDER By the Court. - Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that upon requisition being submitted before the Court by the Investigating Officer on 6.7.2013, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner as well as against other persons including Rajesh Prasad Singh, Anil Kumar, Ajeshwar Prasad Singh and Piyush Kujur. They challenged the order under which warrant of arrest had been issued against them before the Court. This Court after hearing did not find any illegality with the issuance of warrant of arrest. The point which had been raised in their applications was that this Court had already quashed the order under which warrant of arrest had been issued on 21.3.2013 as the same was not in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the order was quashed, a fresh requisition was submitted in which statements were made regarding the dates when the raid had been laid for arresting the accused. All those dates were prior to 21.3.2013. 2. At that time argument what had been advanced was that as soon as order under which warrant of arrest was quashed on 21.3.2013, any action taken prior to 21.3.2013 would be non-est which could not be the basis for issuance of fresh warrant of arrest. However, that plea was not accepted by this Court and the application got dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved with that order, some of the petitioners of those cases filed Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No. 7581 of 2013 in which notice has been issued to the other side. In the meantime, an order has been passed to the effect that the warrant of arrest issued against those petitioner by the Special Judge (Vigilance) shall not be executed. 4. According to Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, similar is the situation here and thereby the order needs to be passed in the same term in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order. 5. However, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that counter-affidavit has been filed wherein specific averments have been given about the dates i.e. 14.7.2013, 15.7.2013, 16.7.2013 and 17.7.2013 when serious efforts were made with the help of local police to apprehend the petitioner but the petitioner was found absent. 5. However, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that counter-affidavit has been filed wherein specific averments have been given about the dates i.e. 14.7.2013, 15.7.2013, 16.7.2013 and 17.7.2013 when serious efforts were made with the help of local police to apprehend the petitioner but the petitioner was found absent. All those dates when efforts were made are subsequent to the date when the order for issuance of warrant of arrest had been quashed by this Court so far this petitioner is concerned and therefore, the case of this petitioner happens to be quite different from the case of those persons who have moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. Immediately when this fact was pointed out, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel points it out that those dates when raids were allegedly laid, according to the Vigilance, are subsequent to the dates when the impugned order was passed. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the issue which is here in the instant case, is the same which was there in the other criminal applications which had been preferred by Rajesh Prasad Singh, Anil Kumar, Ajeshwar Prasad Singh and Piyush Kujur. However, those applications were dismissed. Being aggrieved with that order, some of them have moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein notice has been issued and operation of the impugned order has been stayed. 8. Here, in the instant case, it would be significant to note that the dates mentioned in the requisition on which raids were allegedly laid for apprehending the petitioner are all prior to 5.4.2013. Subsequent dates when raids were laid were never there in the requisition and as such, it can easily be said that the Court while passing order for issuance of warrant of arrest had no occasion to take into consideration those dates. 9. In such situation, in the fitness of thing, it would be desirable that the matter be posted after one month in anticipation of an order being passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 10. Until further order, warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall not be executed. 11. In the meantime, as has been ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Vigilance would be at liberty to submit charge-sheet. 12. 10. Until further order, warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall not be executed. 11. In the meantime, as has been ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Vigilance would be at liberty to submit charge-sheet. 12. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance for needful. Order accordingly.