JUDGMENT Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking to expunge the word ‘absconder’ in the charge-sheet no. 143 dated 24.8.2011 and to quash the consequential order dated 13.5.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 102 of 2011 arising out of Madhupatna P.S. Case No. 6 of 2011 issuing N.B.W.(A) against him under Annexure-2. 2. The fact of the case as revealed from the F.I.R. lodged by the informant, Ashok Kumar Swain, the proprietor M/s. Laxminarayan Enterprises which was registered as Madhupatna P.S. Case No. 6 of 2011 dated 28.1.2011, against the petitioner along with two others under Sections 381/411/34, IPC, is that the petitioner along with some other persons have stolen away some valuable articles from his godown. It is alleged that on 25.1.2011 the petitioner and his associates transported those materials by an Auto Rickshaw from Khannagar Fish Market to Pithapur worth of which IS around Rs.4,70,000/- vide Annexure-1. 3. After filing of the F.I.R. under Annexure-1 apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached this Court by filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which was registered as BLAPL No. 2624 of 2011 and this Court disposed of the same on 09.02.2011 with the following order: “xxx xxx xxx xxx Considering the materials available on record and keeping in view the nature of allegations made against the petitioner it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in Madhupatna P.S. Case No. 06 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 102 of 2011 pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack, he shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on such terms and conditions as the arresting officer may deem just and proper. UCC be granted on proper application.” The F.I.R. was lodged on 28.1.2011 and the petitioner filed the application for anticipatory bail on 4.2.2011 and this Court passed the bail order on 9.2.2011 when the investigation was in progress. It appears that the police has never tried to apprehend the petitioner. Since no action was taken to apprehend the petitioner, question of releasing the petitioner on bail pursuant to the order dated 9.2.2011 did not arise. Further the order of granting anticipatory bail dated 9.2.2011 was passed in presence of the learned counsel for the State. 4. It appears that the police has never tried to apprehend the petitioner. Since no action was taken to apprehend the petitioner, question of releasing the petitioner on bail pursuant to the order dated 9.2.2011 did not arise. Further the order of granting anticipatory bail dated 9.2.2011 was passed in presence of the learned counsel for the State. 4. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet showing the petitioner as ‘absconder’ and thereafter the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack took cognizance of offence under Sections 381/411/34, IPC vide order dated 11.5.2011 in G.R. Case No. 102 of 2011 and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against him. 5. Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged the following questions: a) Whether a person can be declared absconder when he was under the protective shield of the court? b) Whether N.B.W.-A can be issued when a person is deemed to be in the constructive custody of the Court? He further submitted that the alleged charge-sheet submitted by the police indicating the petitioner as ‘absconder’ may give rise to a presumption under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and further the order dated 13.5.2011 may curtail the liberty of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India when he is under the protective umbrella of the order passed by this Court on 9.2.2011 in an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence, the action taken is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should quash the same. He further submitted that the petitioner, who is working as a labourer in his locality, was all along available at his residence. Due to his illness, the doctor advised him to take rest for three weeks and as such he has not attempted to avoid any arrest because he is being protected by order of this Court. Therefore, showing the petitioner as ‘absconder’ in the charge-sheet no. 143 dated 24.8.2011 by the police is thoroughly misconceived one. 6. Mr. Zafarulla, learned Addl. Due to his illness, the doctor advised him to take rest for three weeks and as such he has not attempted to avoid any arrest because he is being protected by order of this Court. Therefore, showing the petitioner as ‘absconder’ in the charge-sheet no. 143 dated 24.8.2011 by the police is thoroughly misconceived one. 6. Mr. Zafarulla, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State vehemently objected to such contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that since the petitioner is avoiding the arrest, the learned Magistrate has passed just and appropriate order while taking cognizance by issuing N.B.W.-A against him which is well within his jurisdiction and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the same by exercising of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. It appears that as the charge-sheet was submitted by the police showing the petitioner as “absconder”, the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant of arrest while taking cognizance though the petitioner is under protective umbrella pursuant to the order dated 9.2.2011 passed by this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, when the petitioner is under the protective umbrella under Section 438 Cr.P.C., question may come for consideration whether he can be considered as an “absconder”. 8. In view of such position, it is necessary to consider at this stage what is the meaning of “absconder”. a) In Chamber’s twentieth century Dictionary the word “abscond” has been defined as “to hide or quite the country in order to escape a legal process or anticipating the issuance of said process quits the country he can said to have been absconded”. b) Absconder. To be an “absconder” in the eye of law, it is necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home. [Kartarey v. State of U.P., 1976 Cri.L.J. 13 (SC)= (1976) 1 SCC 172 , (1975) SCC (Cri.) 803, (1975) Cri.L.R. (SC) 690. 9. Now let us come to the meaning of „absconding?. The Apex Court had occasion to consider the meaning of “Absconding” in JAYENDRA VISHNU THAKUR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER, (2009) 7 SCC 104 =(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 500= (2008) 108 CLT 761. Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the said judgment read as follows:- “40. The term “absconding” has been defined in several dictionaries. The Apex Court had occasion to consider the meaning of “Absconding” in JAYENDRA VISHNU THAKUR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER, (2009) 7 SCC 104 =(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 500= (2008) 108 CLT 761. Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the said judgment read as follows:- “40. The term “absconding” has been defined in several dictionaries. We may refer to some of them: Black’s Law Dictionary – To depart secretly or suddenly, especially to avoid arrest, prosecution or service of process. P. Ramanatha Aiyar – primary meaning of word is “to hide”. Oxford English Dictionary – “To bide or sow away”. Words and Phrases – “clandestine manner/intent to avoid legal process”. 41. In Kartarey v. State of U.P. this Court held: (SCC p.181, para 43):- “43. Further it is wrong to say that Baljeet never absconded. Contrary to what Baljeet has said in his examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C., the investigating office, P.W.7, testified that Baljeet was found hiding in a chhappar in the village from where he was arrested. This account of Baljeet’s arrest was not challenged in cross-examination. To be an “absconder” in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home. We therefore, do not find any ground to distinguish the case of Baljeet from that of Sitaram and to treat him differently.” 10. From the above meaning of the word ‘abscond’, ‘absconder’ and ‘absconding’, the reasonable conclusion is that there must be intention to avoid legal process for that it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home. Applying the meaning attached to the above words in the present context, the petitioner can not be construed to be an “absconder” so as to take cognizance against him on the basis of charge-sheet submitted and issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner is under the protective umbrella of Section 438 Cr.P.C. by getting an anticipatory bail and in the event of arrest he would be released on bail by the Arresting Officer as per the terms and conditions to be fixed by him. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner is under the protective umbrella of Section 438 Cr.P.C. by getting an anticipatory bail and in the event of arrest he would be released on bail by the Arresting Officer as per the terms and conditions to be fixed by him. As it appears that the petitioner has not been apprehended by the police in course of investigation rather the police has submitted charge sheet showing him as „absconder? without making proper investigation or taking steps to arrest him. This clearly indicates that the police has not taken steps during the investigation to apprehend the petitioner rather the police has acted just in a casual manner and submitted charge-sheet showing the petitioner as „absconder? though he was all along available in his own house under the protective umbrella pursuant to the order passed by this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. By using the word „absconder?, the Investigating Officer has deliberately made an attempt to lend weight for such presumption under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act in consequence whereof the learned court below was constrained to pass order for issuance of N.B.W.-A against him when he is in fact under protection of anticipatory bail order of this Court. 12. The order of anticipatory bail dated 9.2.2011 was passed in presence of the counsel for the State. Even if for any reason the petitioner has not been arrested by the I.O., the Government counsel in whose presence the order was passed should communicated to the concerned police station the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail. As it appears, no communication has been issued from the office of the Advocate General to the concerned Police Station with regard to the order granting anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner on 9.2.2011 though the said order was passed in presence of the counsel for the State. Due to such non-communication by the learned counsel for the State, the police had shown the petitioner as an „absconder? in the charge-sheet no. 143 dated 24.8.2011, thereby the learned court below has taken cognizance and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner showing him as absconder vide impugned order dated 13.5.2011. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the description of the petitioner as absconder in the charge-sheet no. 143 dated 24.8.2011 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the N.B.W.-A issued vide impugned order dated 13.5.2011 is recalled. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the description of the petitioner as absconder in the charge-sheet no. 143 dated 24.8.2011 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the N.B.W.-A issued vide impugned order dated 13.5.2011 is recalled. The learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack is directed to proceed with the matter on the basis of the charge-sheet no. 143 dated 24.8.2011 in accordance with law without treating the petitioner as an absconder. Further, if the petitioner files an application for bail in the said G.R. Case, he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may deem just and proper. 14. Before parting, this Court is of the view that whenever an anticipatory bail is granted by this Court, the concerned Law Officer of the Office of the Advocate General, Odisha should communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Police Station so that in future such type of difficulties may not arise. 15. With the above observation and direction, the CRLMC is disposed of. A free copy of this judgment be handed over to the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State for necessary action at the end of the Office of the Advocate General, Odisha.