JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Vigilance Case No.57 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.54 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi has been pleased to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner filed anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No.2981 of 2017 before a coordinate Bench of this Court which was rejected vide order dated 13.11.2017 and in connection with the selfsame case, earlier also Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.432 of 2018 was filed before this Court which was allowed by a coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.02.2018 and the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was quashed but the order issuing the warrant of arrest against the petitioner consequent upon which the said proclamation under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued remained intact. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in capacity of Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Ramgarh cum Executive Engineer, N.R.E.P., Ramgarh, amassed disproportionate income of 82.31% to the known source of his income during the check period. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner by the same court and subsequently, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was made but the same was quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.432 of 2018 on the ground that the said order does not contain any reason and it was observed that the Special Judge be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at various stages of the investigation, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at various stages of the investigation, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Investigating Officer submitted a requisition on 31.08.2021 before the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest after quashing by the coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.432 of 2018, of the order dated 04.01.2018 passed in the same case by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi whereby order for proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was made. It is then submitted that in the impugned order, the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi has mentioned that the Investigating Officer has prayed for an order of warrant of arrest and the same was accompanied with the case diary, memo of evidence, copy of sanction order for prosecution of the accused-petitioner. The Learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi has recorded in the impugned order that earlier non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner was issued and vide order dated 16.02.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.432 of 2018, the said order dated 04.01.2018 by which proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued has been quashed and after going through the record, it appeared to the trial court that it is essential to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the said accused and it allowed the prayer of Investigating Officer and issued fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner as prayed for with a direction to submit an execution report with the returnable date that is on 01.11.2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required but the moment the Investigating Officer came to know that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner is going to be solemnized on 28.11.2021, the Investigating Officer has filed the requisition dated 31.08.2021 for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest and the said non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued by the leaned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the warrant of arrest can be directed against any person who is an accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading his arrest and when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was not evading his arrest hence, only because the petitioner is an accused of a non-bailable offence, the learned trial court below ought not to have issued warrant of arrest against him. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has also not recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is evading his arrest and the trial court has not recorded its satisfaction that the condition laid down in the law for issuing warrant of arrest has been fulfilled and the procedure has been complied with. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court vide order dated 11.08.2020 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4155 of 2019, paragraph no.5 of which reads as under:- “5. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no material in the record, neither in the requisition nor in the document annexed therewith, to show that the petitioners are evading their arrest. In the impugned order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned court below, it has not been mentioned that the petitioners are evading their arrest, which indicates that the, learned court below has not expressed subjective satisfaction regarding the said essential ingredient for directing warrant for the arrest of the petitioners. It is a settled principle of law that the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest involves interference with the personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 in paragraph 50. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 in paragraph 50. As the learned court below has not recorded any subjective satisfaction regarding existence of the essential ingredients for issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest, that the petitioners are evading arrest, but without such essential ingredient has ordered issue the same, hence, the impugned order dated 05.09.2019 is not sustainable in law and the same is quashed and set aside. As the subsequent order dated 25.11.2019 by the learned court below by which process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued is based upon the said order dated 05.09.2019 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued, and as already the said order dated 05.09.2019 has been quashed and set aside, consequently, the order dated 25.11.2019 is also quashed and set aside.” And whereby in a case where there was no material in the record to show that the petitioners of that case were evading their arrest, this Court has quashed and set aside the order for issuing of non-bailable warrant of arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the order of Supreme Court of India in the case of Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615, paragraph nos.11 and 12 of which reads as under:- “11. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet. We have, in fact, come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the chargesheet being filed non-bailable warrants have been issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the court. We have, in fact, come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the chargesheet being filed non-bailable warrants have been issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the court. We are of the view that if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody. The word “custody” appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the chargesheet. 12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.” and submits that there is no justification for arrest of the petitioner only for the purpose of submitting charge sheet against him as without his arrest also, the learned Special Judge, ACB can accept the charge sheet. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Vigilance Case No.57 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.54 of 2016 be set aside. 4. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Vigilance Case No.57 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.54 of 2016 be set aside. 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the A.C.B. on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for the quashing the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Vigilance Case No.57 of 2016 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.54 of 2016 whereby the order for issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest has been passed by the learned trial court and submits that the contention of the petitioner herein that the arrest of the petitioner is required for the purpose of submission of charge sheet is only a figment of imagination of the petitioner as nowhere in the requisition, it has been mentioned that that the requisition for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest is sought by the Investigating Officer is required for the purpose of submission of charge sheet nor there is any material in the record to arrive at such a conclusion. It is further submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the petitioner was before this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.432 of 2018 and prior to that also, the warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, obviously as he was evading his arrest and there is no change in the status of the investigation and the petitioner continues to evade his arrest as he has neither appeared before the court not before the investigating officer even after the disposal of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Number 432 of 2018 knowing full well that the order of issuing warrant of arrest against him has not been interfered with by the concerned coordinate bench of this Court in the earlier said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition hence the impugned order is to be read in continuity with the facts already existing in the record of the trial court. It is then submitted that as the petitioner did not raise the issue that the petitioner was not evading his arrest in he said earlier Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and having not done so, therefore even after quashing of the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi, the order of issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner by the trial court has remained intact yet as petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer or the trial court knowing pretty well that non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him and his prayer for anticipatory bail which is the basis for apprehension of his being arrested in connection with non-bailable offence being rejected since long. It is further submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor that in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra), it has not been said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Investigating Agency cannot arrest an accused before submission of charge sheet rather it has only said that the court cannot insist arrest of an accused merely for proceeding in custody at the time of submission of charge sheet. It is next submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that in the requisition, it has only been mentioned that there is sufficient material against the petitioner to submit charge sheet and it does not mean that the same impedes the Investigating Officer to collect further material by the custodial interrogation of the petitioner or otherwise to make the case against the petitioner full proof and to establish the allegations against him beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted that the prayer has become infructuous for all practical purposes as the returnable date of the non-bailable warrant of arrest expires today. Hence, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi by which the learned trial court has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 5. Hence, it is submitted that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi by which the learned trial court has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is not practically possible for trial courts to pass lengthy orders at the time of issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest, keeping in view the volume of work and the number of warrants of arrest to be issued in any particular working day. The fact remains that earlier also, the non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued by the same court in the same case against the same petitioner, which shows that their existed ingredients for issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest and though the petitioner was before this Court, the said order by which the non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him was not challenged before this Court and thus the said earlier order issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner by the trial court has remained intact. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the subsequent issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest with a direction to the Investigating Officer to submit execution report returnable within the specified date with reference to the order passed by the coordinate bench of this court in the said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition need not be interfered with only on the ground that it has not specifically been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner is evading his arrest more so because there is no material in the record to suggest that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer at any point of time during the investigation and that the material in the record suggest that the Investigating Officer requires the presence of the petitioner before him for the purpose of conducting necessary investigation in the case and the learned trial court has recorded its satisfaction in the impugned order that it is essential to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that the returnable date of these non-bailable warrant of arrest expires today. It is also pertinent to mention here that the returnable date of these non-bailable warrant of arrest expires today. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Thus, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.