JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 09.04.2021 passed in Angara P.S.Case No.79 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No.6478 of 2015, pending in the court of Miss Nutan Ekka, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 4. In the year 2011, the First Information Report was lodged on the following premises: “That, the case of the prosecution as alleged in the First Information Report inter alia is that in the year 2011, Madhu Chanda, elder sister of the informant, was married with one Nand Kishore Sahu, a resident of Burdhwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi. Her relationship with her husband ceased to exist, as such, she was pursuing her studies by staying in a hostel and side by side, she was also pursuing coaching classes. Due to non-availability of employment and due to lack of relationship with her husband, used to remain in sad condition. The dead body of the sister of the informant was found hanging with the tree. The informant suspected either her murder or suicide. Since last three months, the informant had no talk with her sister, as such, he is not in a position to disclose the reason of her death.” 5. The petitioner has not appeared in the concerned court and thereafter the impugned order dated 09.04.2021 has been passed whereby processes under section 82 Cr.P.C has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. 6. Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not having any knowledge of the present case and earlier non-bailable warrant has not been served upon the petitioner. He submits that at the first time on 15.12.2020 the Investigating Officer has filed the petition for warrant of arrest against the petitioner. He submits that there is no reason assigned in the said petition of issuance of warrant of arrest. He submits that at the first time on 15.12.2020 the Investigating Officer has filed the petition for warrant of arrest against the petitioner. He submits that there is no reason assigned in the said petition of issuance of warrant of arrest. According to him, notice under section 41A Cr.P.C was also not served upon the petitioner at any point of time. He submits that the order dated 06.04.2021 of the said case, it reveals that the petition was filed by the Investigating Officer allowing the case diary in execution report of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and for issuance of processes under section 82 Cr.P.C. According to him, the petitioner is having two addresses; one of Gaya and another of Jamshedpur. The warrant has been issued at Gaya. He further submits that information was filed under section 84 Cr.P.C. before the concerned court by the brother and son of the petitioner disclosing that son of the petitioner is residing at Gaya and the petitioner is not residing. He further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Siddharth v. Uttar Pradesh and Another” reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 615 has made out the guidelines of arrest at the time of filing of charge sheet. According to him, issuance of warrant is serious in nature and if only the summons can do the things, there was no occasion to pass such order. On this premise, he submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed. 7. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State draws attention of the Court to the impugned order and submits that on both the places as disclosed by the petitioner the police has visited and the petitioner is evading the execution and the trial court after considering the entire case record, has passed the order. 8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 09.04.2021, it is crystal clear that the trial court has looked into the entire case record as well as execution report of non-bailable warrant which was issued against the petitioner on 15.12.2020. In the execution report it was disclosed that the petitioner is evading his arrest. The order dated 15.12.2020 is also on the record that was also a reasoned order. Thereafter, the non-bailable warrant was directed to be issued against the petitioner. In the execution report it was disclosed that the petitioner is evading his arrest. The order dated 15.12.2020 is also on the record that was also a reasoned order. Thereafter, the non-bailable warrant was directed to be issued against the petitioner. The warrant of arrest contained in Annexure-4 at page no.34 is also on the record as has been filed by the petitioner along with the petition which is issued in the name of the petitioner at the address of the petitioner of Gaya. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, the document dated 27.03.2021 has been brought on the record which is addressed to the Officer Incharge of the Vishnupat Police Station, District Gaya issued by one of the officer of Angara Police Station, Ranchi. There is noting which is also there that the address of the petitioner is correct. In the impugned order dated 09.04.2021, the subjective satisfaction of the concerned court is reflected. The concerned court has also indicated the time, place and date of appearance of the petitioner which is mandatory in terms of Form-IV of the Cr.P.C as has been held by this Court in the case of “Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand” reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 . There is no doubt that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Siddharth”(supra) has recently considered section 170 Cr.P.C and held that in a case where the accused is cooperating with the investigation there is no necessity of issuing arrest warrant as are being done in the cases across the country. The facts of “Siddarth” (supra) is not attracted in the case of the petitioner as the petitioner has not appeared at any point of time before the Investigating Officer. The petitioner is happened to be a police officer who is having the knowledge of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he has not acted pursuant to call issued by the concerned court. The impugned order is well-reasoned. No relief can be extended to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition [Cr.M.P. No.1506 of 2021] is dismissed. 10. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.