JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Jalish Pradhan @ Jalish Khan, has challenged the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur, whereby he has initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. He has also challenged the order dated 7.1.2013 whereby the learned Judge has issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 2. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has contended that even after recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the police did not file charge-sheet against him. Instead, the police filed a charge-sheet only against the co-accused Nisar. Secondly, during pendency of the trial, the prosecution had filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for adding the petitioner as accused as evidence had started trickling in against him. Thirdly, although initially the learned Judge had issued a bailable warrant by order dated 23.7.2012, but eventually by order dated 7.1.2013, the petitioner was declared as absconder and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Fourthly, according to the order dated 24.9.2012, the learned trial court had concluded that the police was hand-in-gloves with the petitioner, and other co-accused persons, and was not executing the bailable warrants against them. Therefore, it directed that a separate proceeding be initiated against the SHO, Police Station Kaman, Shiv Ganesh, ASI, and against those police personnel who had claimed that they had gone to the house of the petitioner to execute the bailable warrant, namely Ram Niwas, Belt No. 883, and Vinod, Belt No. 1270. Since the learned trial court had already concluded that the police has not duly executed the bailable warrant, it was not justified in initiating the proceedings under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner by order dated 29.10.2012. Lastly, in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, [ (2007) 12 SCC 1 ] , the Supreme Court has already opined that the courts should be reluctant to issue a non-bailable warrant against an accused person at the very first step of summoning him to stand trial. However, the learned Judge has issued the non-bailable warrant at the very first instance by order dated 7.1.2013. Therefore, the said order deserves to be interfered with. 3. On the other land, Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, the learned Public Prosecutor, and Mr. However, the learned Judge has issued the non-bailable warrant at the very first instance by order dated 7.1.2013. Therefore, the said order deserves to be interfered with. 3. On the other land, Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, the learned Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Deen Dayal Sharma, the learned counsel for the prosecutrix, have vemently raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the petitioner happens to be the husband of the sitting MLA, Smt. Zahida Khan. Thus, he wields an enormous political power in the area. Secondly, the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in her testimony had clearly claimed that twice she was ravished by the petitioner. Although the police may not have filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner due to his political power, but subsequently by order dated 23.7.2012, the trial court had issued process against the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. By order dated 23.7.2012, the learned trial court had issued bailable warrant against the petitioner. Hence, at the first instance, a bailable warrant had been issued, although the allegation against the petitioner was of having committed rape with the prosecutrix. Thirdly, the complainant had claimed before the learned trial court that the police is hand-in-gloves with the petitioner due to his political clout. Despite the fact that the local newspapers clearly showed him as sitting with the local political leaders and administrative officers, the police claimed that the petitioner is out of his house due to some personal work. The contention raised by the complainant was clearly noted by the learned Judge and the report of the Superintendent of Police was called for with regard to the clippings of local newspapers. Moreover, considering the conduct of the police, the learned Judge had also directed that a separate proceeding should be initiated against the police personnel for their dereliction of duty. Similarly, by order dated 29.10.2012, the police had noted wrong facts. Thus, the learned Judge was justified in concluding that the petitioner is trying to evade the law as he is well aware of the fact that a bailable warrant has been issued against him. Moreover, he has been zealously protected by the police. Similarly, by order dated 29.10.2012, the police had noted wrong facts. Thus, the learned Judge was justified in concluding that the petitioner is trying to evade the law as he is well aware of the fact that a bailable warrant has been issued against him. Moreover, he has been zealously protected by the police. According to the learned counsel, since it is imperative that the petitioner should face the trial, since it is essential to ensure that he appears before the trial court, the learned Judge was certainly justified in declaring him as an absconder after the proclamation was issued under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. Thus, the learned Judge was certainly justified in issuing a non-bailable warrant by order dated 7.1.2013. Therefore, the learned counsel have supported both the impugned orders. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner Jalish Pradhan is the husband of the sitting MLA, Zahida Khan. Since Zahida Khan belongs to the ruling party in the State, chances that the petitioner wields political power cannot be ruled out. Therefore, a grave possibility does, indeed, exist that the police is under the influence of the petitioner. The fact that the police is under influence of the petitioner can also be gauzed from the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur dated 26.10.2012. According to him, the newspaper cuttings relate to the period from 23.8.2012 to 28.8.2012. Meanwhile, the Superintendent of Police claims that the police had received the bailable warrant on 3.9.2012. The statement made by the Superintendent of Police is clearly incorrect. For, according to the learned Judge, the bailable warrant for the petitioner was issued on 7.8.2012 and was received by the SHO, Police Station Kaman on 11.8.2012. The said bailable warrant was marked for execution on 11.8.2012 itself. According to the report of the Process Server, Kailash, dated 22.8.2012, the petitioner could not be located at his house as he had left the town for admission of his children. Moreover, according to the report of the Process Server dated 24.8.2012, it was clearly indicated that on 24.8.2012 the petitioner did not come to the Panchayat Samiti office. The bailable warrant was returned to the court on 27.8.2012. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police was not correct in claiming that the police received the bailable warrant on 3.9.2012. Moreover, according to the report of the Process Server dated 24.8.2012, it was clearly indicated that on 24.8.2012 the petitioner did not come to the Panchayat Samiti office. The bailable warrant was returned to the court on 27.8.2012. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police was not correct in claiming that the police received the bailable warrant on 3.9.2012. In fact, the police had already received the bailable warrant on 11.8.2012. 6. Interestingly, according to the newspaper report between 23.8.2012 to 28.8.2012, the petitioner was seen in the company of police personnel and the administrative officers. Thus, his whereabouts were very well known to the local police. Yet they failed to apprehend him and failed to execute the bailable warrant. These facts have been noted clearly in the order dated 29.20.2012. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in observing that the police is submitting an incorrect report before the court. Hence, he was equally justified in initiating the proceedings under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner. 7. According to the order dated 7.1.2013, the proclamation under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. has already been made. Despite the proclamation, the petitioner was evading the law. Thus, from 23.7.2012 till 7.1.2012, i.e. for a period of over five months, the trial court consistently tried to ensure that the petitioner does appear before the trial court and stands the trial. Hence, the contention that at the very first instance the learned trial court has issued a non-bailable warrant is belied by the record. 8. Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. read as under:- "82. Proclamation for person absconding.-(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:- (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house; (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. 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. (2) Such order shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person within the district in which it is made; and it shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person without such district when endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose district such property is situate. (2) Such order shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person within the district in which it is made; and it shall authorise the attachment of any property belonging to such person without such district when endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose district such property is situate. (3) If the property ordered to be attached is a debt or other movable property, the attachment under this section shall be made- (a) by seizure ; or (b) by the appointment of a receiver ; or (c) by an order in writing prohibiting the delivery of such property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf; or (d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit. (4) If the property ordered to be attached is immovable, the attachment under this section shall, in the case of land paying revenue to the State Government, be made through the Collector of the district which the land is situate, and in all other cases- (a) by taking possession ; or (b) by the appointment of a receiver ; or (c) by an order in writing prohibiting the payment of rent on delivery of property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf ; or (d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit. (5) If the property ordered to be attached consists of livestock or is of a perishable nature, the Court may, if it thinks it expedient, order immediate sale thereof, and in such case the proceeds of the sale shall abide the order of the Court. (6) The powers, duties and liabilities of a receiver appointed under this section shall be the same as those of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)." 9. Section 82 bestows a power on the court to declare a person as an absconder after issuing a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. Moreover, it bestows a discretionary power upon the court to either take the evidence or not to take the evidence, for coming to the conclusion that the person is absconding or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed. Moreover, it bestows a discretionary power upon the court to either take the evidence or not to take the evidence, for coming to the conclusion that the person is absconding or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed. It is only Sub-clause (4) which warrants that an inquiry should be conducted in case the person is alleged to have committed offence under certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 10. However, in the present case, the petitioner is not covered by Sub-clause (4). But, is merely covered by Sub-clause (1).The learned Judge has given ample reasons for concluding that the petitioner is concealing himself from the arms of the law. Thus, the learned Judge was justified in declaring the petitioner as an absconder. 11. A trial court is bound to ensure that an accused person does stand trial. Therefore, a trial court is duly expected to take all the necessary steps in order to ensure that the accused is produced before the trial court. The process of the law cannot be scuttled by an accused by using his political clout, or his money power, or his personal connections. The present case involves a serious offence wherein the prosecutrix claims that twice she was ravished by the present petitioner and by other co-accused persons. Although, in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. (supra) the Apex Court had opined that the court should be reluctant to issue a non-bailable warrant at the first instance, but even then the Apex Court has held that in cases of grave offences, non-bailable warrant can be issued at the first instance. The allegation against the petitioner is for offence under Section 376 IPC. Obviously, it is a grave offence. Therefore, even if non-bailable warrant were issued at the first instance, it would be legally sustainable. However, in the instant case after duly trying to procure the presence of the petitioner, the learned Judge has issued the non-bailable warrant. Thus, he is legally justified in taking the necessary steps to bring the petitioner to trial. 12. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the orders under challenge, dated 29.10.2012 and 7.1.2013. This petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******