Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 640 (JHR)

Nalin Soren v. State of Jharkhand

2013-05-17

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER I.A. No. 2977 of 2013 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not want to press this interlocutory application. Accordingly, it is dismissed as not pressed. I.A. No. 3328 of 2013 3. Heard the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the requisition upon which warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued vide order dated 07/02/2013 never seems to be in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 73 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, any order passed on that requisition is quite illegal. 5. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that ample evidence have been collected against the petitioner and, thereby, if the Court has issued warrant of arrest on the basis of requisition submitted by the Investigating Officer, no illegality has been committed and that the police does have power to arrest a person if he is an accused in a cognizable case. 6. There is no dispute in the proposition of law that the police or the investigating agency does have power to arrest a persons even in absence of warrant of arrest in a cognizable case but that power is subscribed by the conditions mentioned under Section 41 Cr.P.C. So far as the matter relating to issuance of warrant of arrest is concerned, that never seems to have been issued in accordance with law. 7. From perusal of the requisition, on the basis of which an order was passed for issuance of warrant of arrest, it would appear that warrant of arrest was sought to be issued on the ground that only upon arrest of the accused persons including the petitioner something could be divulged in the matter and that sufficient materials have been collected against the petitioner but none of the grounds mentioned in the requisition comes within the purview as contained in Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nowhere it has been stated in the requisition that the accused is evading arrest and in such situation, learned Magistrate certainly committed illegality in passing the order relating to issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 8. Consequently, the order dated 07/02/2013, whereby warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued, is hereby quashed. 9. It goes without saying that the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. 10. 8. Consequently, the order dated 07/02/2013, whereby warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued, is hereby quashed. 9. It goes without saying that the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. 10. I.A. No. 3328 of 2013 stands disposed of.