JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kumar Harsh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State of Jharkhand. 3. This Criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of Chakulia Shyam – Sundarpur P.S. Case No.24 of 2012 dated 21.03.2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.117 of 2012 registered under Sections 414/420/34 IPC read with Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 26/33 of Indian Forest Act, 1972 said to be pending before the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila. 4. From the records of this case, it appears that vide order dated 16.10.2020 the petitioner had confined his relief to challenge to the order dated 12.08.2015 whereby the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was issued and also challenge to order dated 15.10.2015 whereby process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. was issued. 5. The petitioner had originally prayed for the following relief: (i) Quashing of the order dated 18.03.2015 whereby the bail and the bail bond of the petitioner has been cancelled; for quashing of the order dated 15.05.2015 whereby the application for recall of order dated 18.03.2015 has been rejected; A further prayer has been made to make the anticipatory bail granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as permanent. (ii) Quashing order dated 12.08.2015; whereby and whereunder, process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued and also for quashing of order dated 15.10.2015, whereby learned court has also issued process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 16.10.2020 to submit that in the present proceedings only the issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. are under challenge. He also submits that the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 12.08.2015 without recording any satisfaction and the process under Section 83 was issued vide order dated 15.10.2015 again without recording any reason. The learned counsel also submits that the condition precedent for issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were not satisfied. 7. He also submits that the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 12.08.2015 without recording any satisfaction and the process under Section 83 was issued vide order dated 15.10.2015 again without recording any reason. The learned counsel also submits that the condition precedent for issuance of process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were not satisfied. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the learned court below whereby it has been recorded that that the petitioner was physically present and on the next date on 18.03.2015 on account of absence of the petitioner, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued. He also refers to the order dated 15.05.2015 whereby the petition for recall of order dated 18.03.2015 was also dismissed. The learned counsel submits that the cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrant is not under challenge in the present proceedings and the petitioner is aggrieved by only two orders i.e., order dated 12.08.2015 whereby the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and order dated 15.10.2015 whereby the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was issued. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 303 of 2019 on 19.12.2019 and Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 on 27.04.2020. He submits that the mandatory conditions of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were required to be satisfied as the same has serious interference in personal liberty of a person. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 (Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others) which has been followed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 decided on 27.04.2020. He has referred to Form No. 4 appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure and has placed Sections 82 and 83 to buttress his argument that the condition precedent has not been satisfied. Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the judgements referred to by the petitioner do not deal with a situation of misuse of bail where the petitioner already has knowledge of the date and time of appearance before the learned court below. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State, on the other hand while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the judgements referred to by the petitioner do not deal with a situation of misuse of bail where the petitioner already has knowledge of the date and time of appearance before the learned court below. The learned counsel submits that on 12.02.2015, the petitioner was personally present before the learned court below and the next date fixed was 18.03.2015. However, on 18.03.2015 the petitioner did not appear and consequently, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued. 11. The learned counsel for the opposite party- State has also submitted that the petitioner had also filed a petition for recall of order dated 18.03.2015 by stating that on 18.03.2015, the record was not put up and no date was given to the accused persons and later on, the record was put up before the court and that without informing the lawyer the date was fixed as 17.04.2015 after cancelling the bail. It is submitted that due to ignorance of date, the lawyer concerned did not take any steps on 18.03.2015 and subsequently, on 17.04.2015, the order of warrant of arrest was passed. The said petition was rejected on 15.05.2015 by recording that there was deliberate and intentional misuse on the part of the petitioner as the plea of ignorance of the date taken by learned counsel for the accused was not maintainable. It appeared from the order-sheet, case-diary and cause-list that the next date fixed vide order dated 12.02.2015 was 18.03.2015 which was well mentioned in the cause-list and the accused persons and the learned counsels must have been aware of the date. 12. The learned counsel for the State submits that since the absence of the petitioner was deliberate and intentional as recorded in order dated 15.05.2015, the learned court below rightly passed the order under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and consequent order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. He has also referred to paragraph 27 of the judgement passed in Cr. M. P. No. 2722 of 2019 to submit that in the said case, there was no material which suggested that the court had reason to believe that the petitioners had absconded or were concealing themselves so that warrant could not be executed. Findings of this Court 13. M. P. No. 2722 of 2019 to submit that in the said case, there was no material which suggested that the court had reason to believe that the petitioners had absconded or were concealing themselves so that warrant could not be executed. Findings of this Court 13. The following are some of the relevant dates and the sequence of events so far as the present case is concerned : Date(s) Events 10.09.2012 Anticipatory bail of the petitioner was refused by this Court vide A.B.A. No.1608 of 2012 29.10.2012 Interim relief granted to the petitioner by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8050 of 2012 filed against the judgement and order dated 10.09.2012 in A.B.A. No. 1608 of 2012 and it was directed that in case the petitioner is arrested in connection with the case he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. 07.08.2013 Charge sheet was submitted; cognizance was taken and summons were issued 13.12.2013 Interim order dated 29.10.2012 was confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 07.02.2014 Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court communicated to the learned court below. 01.03.2014 Petitioner filed surrender cum bail petition before the learned court below. Bail was granted and the bail bond furnished by the petitioner was accepted. 12.02.2015 Petitioner was physically present and the next dated fixed was 18.03.2015. 18.03.2015 Petitioner was absent. Bail bond was cancelled and non-bailable warrant was issued. 17.04.2015 Petitioner was absent. 15.05.2015 A petition was filed by the petitioner to recall non-bailable warrant of arrest issued on 18.03.2015, but the same was rejected vide order dated 15.05.2015 by observing that the bail of the petitioner was cancelled owing to misuse which was deliberate and intentional misuse and the plea of ignorance of the date was rejected as from the order-sheet, case-diary and cause-list, it was apparent that the next date fixed on 12.02.2015 was 18.03.2015. The learned court below refused to recall the order of warrant of arrest and rejected the petition. 15.06.2015 the accused persons remained absent 14.07.2015 the accused persons remained absent 12.08.2015 (Impugned) Process under Section 82 was issued, inter alia, against the present petitioner 14.09.2015 It has been recorded in the order-sheet that execution report of process under Section 82 was not yet received and the matter was directed to be posted on 15.10.2015 awaiting the execution report. 15.06.2015 the accused persons remained absent 14.07.2015 the accused persons remained absent 12.08.2015 (Impugned) Process under Section 82 was issued, inter alia, against the present petitioner 14.09.2015 It has been recorded in the order-sheet that execution report of process under Section 82 was not yet received and the matter was directed to be posted on 15.10.2015 awaiting the execution report. 15.10.2015 (Impugned) Without waiting for the execution report under Section 82 of Cr.P.C, the learned court below, inter alia, recorded absence of the petitioner and directed issuance of process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. 13.12.2019 After expiry of more than four years, the present petition was filed. 14. This Court finds that the petitioner and the co-accused persons have been alleged to be involved in illegal mining of quartzite stones and on the basis of secret information on 20.03.2012, a truck bearing No. OR-11K-4224 alleged to be illegally carrying stones containing quartzite was intercepted while it was on its way to Orissa. When a query was put to the driver as to from where the loaded stones were excavated, it was disclosed that illegal mining was done in the forest area and whereupon mined stones were collected and the petitioner dispatches them outside. Thus, as per the F.I.R, the crime of illegal mining of quartzite came to light and the documents shown by the driver and the Khalasi were seized. On that basis, case was registered under Sections 414, 420, 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 26/33 of Indian Forest Act. Finding regarding issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 12.08.2015 15. As per the provisions of section 89 of Cr.P.C, when a person bound by any bond taken under the Code to appear before the court, does not appear, the court is empowered to issue a warrant directing that such person be arrested and produced before him. This court finds that on account of non-appearance by the petitioner, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner vide order dated 18.03.2015 upon cancelling the bail bond. Further, another order dated 15.05.2015 was passed rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall of order dated 18.03.2015. Admittedly, both the orders i.e. order dated 18.03.2015 and 15.05.2015 are not under challenge before this court in view of the order dated 16.10.2020. 16. Further, another order dated 15.05.2015 was passed rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall of order dated 18.03.2015. Admittedly, both the orders i.e. order dated 18.03.2015 and 15.05.2015 are not under challenge before this court in view of the order dated 16.10.2020. 16. This Court also finds that in the order dated 15.05.2015 refusing to recall the order dated 18.03.2015, the learned court below has recorded a specific finding that the misuse of bail, inter alia, on the part of the petitioner was deliberate and intentional misuse. 17. This Court also finds that once a petition was filed and moved by the petitioner on 15.05.2015 for recall of order dated 18.03.2015, it was certainly within the knowledge of the petitioner that his bail bond has been cancelled and warrant of arrest has been issued against him. However, the petitioner neither took any steps against order dated 15.05.2015 and/or against order dated 18.03.2015, nor surrendered before the learned court below, in-spite of having full knowledge that his bail bond has been cancelled and warrant of arrest has been issued. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned court below after recording non-appearance of the accused persons including the petitioner on a few more dates, passed impugned order dated 12.08.2015 for issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that once a finding was already recorded in the order dated 15.05.2015 that the misuse of bail by the petitioner was deliberate and intentional, and even after refusal to recall order dated 18.03.2015 the petitioner did not take any steps for a few dates, there was enough material on record for the court to issue process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The section 82 of Cr.P.C. clearly provides that if any court has reason to believe, inter alia, that any person against whom warrant has been issued by it has absconded, process under section 82 of Cr.P.C. can be issued and the reason to such belief has to be found from the materials on record, which is certainly available in the instant case. 19. 19. In the judgement passed by this court in the case of Md.Rustum Alam and Others versus The state of Jharkhand , Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 decided on 27.04.2020, the order issuing non bailable warrant as well as processes issued under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. in connection with a complaint case were under challenge on the ground that they were issued in a most mechanical manner. In the said case, without receipt of service report of bailable warrant of arrest, non bailable warrant of arrest was issued ; without receipt of service report of non bailable warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued; and without receipt of service report of process under section 82 Cr.P.C., process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was issued .While deciding the said case , the ratio of various judgements passed by Hon’ble Supreme court were taken into consideration including the other judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (Supra) and it was held that the court has to be prima-facie satisfied that the person accused of committing a non bailable offence is evading his arrest and his mere absence in the court cannot give rise to the presumption that he is evading arrest. Further, while deciding the point regarding issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C it has been observed that the court must have sufficient material before it to reach to a conclusion that the person against whom warrant has been issued is absconding or is concealing himself and it is not possible for the authorities to execute warrant of arrest. 20. This Court finds that the facts in the present case are totally different. This case relates to misuse of privilege of bail leading to cancellation of bail bond and consequent issuance of warrant coupled with the fact that the petition for recall of the order cancelling bail bond/issuance of warrant of arrest had also been dismissed by citing reasons that the non-appearance of the petitioner which resulted in cancellation of bail bond was intentional and deliberate, and both these orders have become final and are not under challenge before this court. The present case is not a case where the accused had not appeared pursuant to summons etc. and without complying with the mandatory provision of law further steps have been taken by the court. The present case is not a case where the accused had not appeared pursuant to summons etc. and without complying with the mandatory provision of law further steps have been taken by the court. This court is of a considered view that when an accused released on bail upon furnishing bail bond, violates the terms and conditions of bail bond without any cogent explanation, his case stands on a different footing. Once a bail bond is cancelled, the court is entitled to take all steps to secure his appearance. Violation of terms and conditions of bail has adverse effects on administration of justice and is required to be seriously viewed. 21. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2015 and fixing the next date in the court as 14.09.2015 awaiting execution report. Finding regarding issuance of process under section 83 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 15.10.2015 22. This court finds that the impugned order issuing process under section 83 of Cr.P.C. has been issued without recording any reason in writing and without there being any material about issuance of proclamation in terms of prescribed Form 4 forming part of the second schedule to Cr.P.C. 23. In such circumstances, impugned order dated 15.10.2015 directing issuance of process under section 83 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set-aside. This view is also fortified by the judgement in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (supra) on the point of issuance of process under section 83 of Cr.P.C. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the impugned order dated 12.08.2015 directing issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C. does not call for any interference and the other impugned order dated 15.10.2015 issuance of process under section 83 Cr.P.C. is set aside. It is observed that if the petitioner does not surrender before the learned court below within a period of 15 days from today, the learned court below shall proceed and pass fresh order under section 83 of Cr.P.C as per the procedure established by law. It is observed that if the petitioner does not surrender before the learned court below within a period of 15 days from today, the learned court below shall proceed and pass fresh order under section 83 of Cr.P.C as per the procedure established by law. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement reported in (2009) 7 SCC 104 (Jayendra Vishnu Thakur versus State of Maharashtra) that the validity period or effect of section 82 Cr.P.C. continues till the offender is arrested and once the offender is arrested, the proclamation ceases to operate and if he had a right to take part in the trial, the trial court was duty-bound to provide for the same. 24. This Court also finds that the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was issued as back as on 12.08.2015 and thereafter, the process under Section 83 was issued on 15.10.2015, but the petitioner did not take any steps in connection with the said orders for a long period till 13.12.2019 and it appears that the FIR in the instant case is of the year 2012. From the perusal of the records of this case including the averments made in the petition, this Court finds that there is no explanation given by the petitioner for keeping complete silence for more than four years and thereby, completely avoiding to participate in the trial. In such circumstances, the learned court below is directed to take all steps for expeditious disposal of the case in accordance with law. 25. This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of in the above terms. 26. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX/email’.