ORDER : In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Tatisilwai P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015 whereby and whereunder process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C has been issued. 2. A First Information Report was instituted in which it was alleged that the petitioner and others had entered into an agreement for sale of a piece of land in favour of the informant. Inspite of receiving an amount of Rs. 3,22,000/- the land was not registered in the name of the informant but the same was sold in favour of the other persons. 3. After institution of the First Information Report vide order dated 21.07.2015 non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner for securing his presence. On the requisition filed by the Investigating Officer for issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. an order was passed on 21.07.2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi by allowing the application. 4. Heard Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 21.07.2015 has been passed in a mechanical manner without recording a subjective satisfaction. It has also been submitted that the order does not contain any reasons as to what prompted the court below to issue process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 6. The order dated 21.07.2015 merely indicates that a requisition was filed by the Investigating Officer for issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. since the petitioner was absconding. On the said requisition the prayer made by the Investigating Officer was accepted and direction was given for issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 7. In the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Reported in 2011(4) JLJR (SC)385, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had put in a note of caution by holding that the Courts have to be extra-cautious and careful while directing issuance of non-bailable warrant, otherwise a wrongful detention would amount to denial of constitutional mandate envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant extract of the aforementioned judgment is quoted hereinunder:- “9. The relevant extract of the aforementioned judgment is quoted hereinunder:- “9. It needs little emphasis that since the execution of a non-bailable warrant directly involves curtailment of liberty of a person, warrant of arrest cannot be issued mechanically, but only after recording satisfaction that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is warranted. The Courts have to be extra-cautious and careful while directing issue of non-bailable warrant, else a wrongful detention would amount to denial of constitutional mandate envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, there is no gainsaying that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. Therefore, in order to maintain rule of law and to keep the society in functional harmony, it is necessary to strike a balance between an individual's rights, liberties and privileges on the one hand, and the State on the other. Indeed, it is a complex exercise. As justice Cardozo puts it “on the one side is the social need that crime shall be repressed. On the other, the social need that law shall not be flouted by the insolence of office. There are dangers in any choice. “Be that as it may, it is for the court, which is clothed with the discretion to determine whether the presence of an accused can be secured by a bailable or non-bailable warrant, to strike the balance between the need of law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of the citizen from high- handedness at the hands of the law enforcement agencies on the other. …...(Emphasis supplied)” 8. The proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on the requisition of the Investigating Officer neither discloses any reasons nor reflects the subjective satisfaction of the learned court below. The order dated 21.07.2015 also does not disclose application of judicial mind. In view of the perfunctory nature of the requisition filed by the Investigating Officer and the non-reasoned order given by the court below on 21.07.2015 acceding to the prayer of the Investigating Officer the same is contrary to the settled proposition of law and, therefore, the same needs to be interfered with. 9. In view of the perfunctory nature of the requisition filed by the Investigating Officer and the non-reasoned order given by the court below on 21.07.2015 acceding to the prayer of the Investigating Officer the same is contrary to the settled proposition of law and, therefore, the same needs to be interfered with. 9. Accordingly, in view of what has been discussed above, this application is allowed and the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi Tatisilwai P.S. Case No. 40 of 2015 by which process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C has been issued is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 10. The learned court below is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.