JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.01.2022 whereby process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioners in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No.243/2020, corresponding to G.R. No.340/2021, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. Subsequently the order dated 15.12.2021, by which warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, was also challenged by way of filing I.A. No.3932 of 2022, which was allowed vide order dated 06.06.2022. 3. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are charge-sheeted under the sections of bailable in nature and they are not charge-sheeted against the sections of non-bailable in nature. He further submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has refused to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioners vide order dated 21.01.2021. He further submits that the main accused is Badal Gautam and he has faced the trial and he has already been acquitted by the learned court. He also submits that the petitioners were not evading the arrest and they have already taken steps in view of remedy available under the Cr.P.C. The anticipatory bail applications have been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge as well as by this Court and, thereafter the petitioners have moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for getting anticipatory bail in S.L.P. (Cr.) Nos.00534 of 2022 and 000690 of 2022, which are pending. He further submits that when the offences are non-bailable in nature, there is no question of issuance of warrant and liberty of the petitioners has been taken that too when the order of the anticipatory bail applications are being examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners not cooperating and that is why the learned court has passed the impugned orders. She further submits that the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 is a well reasoned order, whereby, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioners. 5. 4. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners not cooperating and that is why the learned court has passed the impugned orders. She further submits that the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 is a well reasoned order, whereby, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioners. 5. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the materials on the record and finds that vide order dated 21.01.2021, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has been pleased to reject the prayer for issuance of warrant of arrest. In that order, he has also observed that the petitioners are charge-sheeted under the sections of bailable in nature and they are not charge-sheeted against the sections of non-bailable in nature. The main accused Badal Gautam has also faced the trial and he has already been acquitted. In such a case when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has rejected the prayer of the I.O. to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioners vide order dated 21.01.2021 and even assuming that the petitioners were not cooperating with the trial with the investigating agency, at the first instance warrant of arrest was required to be issued whereas straightway non-bailable warrant has been issued by the learned court, which is against the mandate of law. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual and in that view of the matter, the learned court is required to take care before issuing non-bailable warrant as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 . The criteria of issuance of non-bailable warrants has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the said judgment. It is well settled that there cannot be any straight jacket formula for issuance of warrant of arrest in general unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and if it is cleared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence. In that situation only, the issuance of non-bailable warrants are required to be issued. In that situation only, the issuance of non-bailable warrants are required to be issued. In the case in hand, the petitioners have already availed remedy described under the Cr.P.C. by way of filing anticipatory bail applications, which were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge as well as by this Court and the said orders are being tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) Nos.00534 of 2022 and 000690 of 2022. The main accused has already been acquitted, who was charge-sheeted against non-bailable sections and by the impugned order dated 15.12.2021, the learned court has not considered the observations made by his predecessor in the order dated 21.01.2021 and only on the application of the I.O., the impugned order has been passed. This is not a case that the petitioners are evading their arrest and not cooperating, although the petitioners have already taken recourse under the Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the orders dated 15.12.2021 and 31.01.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No.243/2020, corresponding to G.R. No.340/2021, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad are, hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned concerned court to proceed afresh, in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.