JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the orders dated 08.09.2021 and 21.09.2022 by which warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and also to quash the order dated 29.11.2022 for issuing process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., has been passed in connection with Bhelwaghati Police Station Case No.07 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 08.09.2021, a petition was filed by the Investigating Officer of the case mentioning therein that the petitioner is an accused of Bhelwaghati P.S. Case No.07 of 2021 involving the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which is a non-bailable offence and it was contended by the Investigating Officer before the learned Magistrate that the petitioner is absconding from his house and his arrest is essential for further investigation of the case and considering the facts of the case, the learned Magistrate issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. It appears that there is no material in the record to suggest that the Execution Report of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued vide order dated 08.09.2021, was ever submitted to the trial court. There was the change of the Investigating Officer of the case and on 21.09.2022, the new Investigating Officer-S.I. Tobiyas Kerketa, Bhelwaghati Police Station filed a petition for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner who is an accused of the case involving the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Again the learned Magistrate issued the warrant of arrest on being satisfied with the facts of the case. Vide order dated 29.11.2022, the Execution Report of non-bailable warrant of arrest was submitted by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer prayed for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate considering the facts of the case, issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. but did not mention the place and date where the petitioner has to appear. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the orders dated 08.09.2021, 21.09.2022 and 29.11.2022 were passed without application of judicial mind. It is then submitted that though the petitioner filed anticipatory bail application before the High Court during the pendency of the said case, the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was issued. Hence, it is submitted that the orders dated 08.09.2021, 21.09.2022 and 29.11.2022, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the orders dated 08.09.2021, 21.09.2022 and 29.11.2022, as prayed for by the petitioner and fairly submits that the learned Magistrate in its order dated 29.11.2022 has failed to mention the date and place where the petitioner has to appear in compliance of the proclamation issued under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. 6. Having heard the rival submission made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute that the petitioner is an accused of a case involving the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which is a non-bailable offence and it is also a settled principle of law that if a person, accused of a non-bailable offence, evades the arrest, a Magistrate can issue warrant of arrest against such accused. The two different Investigating Officers on two different dates have made prayer before the learned Magistrate that the petitioner is evading his arrest and consequently vide orders dated 08.09.2021 and 21.09.2022, the warrant of arrest against the petitioner was issued by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this Court do not find any illegality in the orders dated 08.09.2021 and 21.09.2022. Accordingly, the same do not required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders dated 08.09.2021 and 21.09.2022 is rejected. 7. Hence, this Court do not find any illegality in the orders dated 08.09.2021 and 21.09.2022. Accordingly, the same do not required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders dated 08.09.2021 and 21.09.2022 is rejected. 7. So far as the order dated 29.11.2022 is concerned, certainly the learned Magistrate committed an error by not mentioning the date and place where the petitioner has to appear in compliance to the proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. The same is against the settled principle of law as by now it is a settled principle of law that the Magistrate issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has to specify the place and date where the accused of a case has to appear. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 29.11.2022, being not sustainable in law, is quashed and set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih is directed to pass a fresh order in compliance to the provisions of law. 9. This Cr.M.P. is allowed in part.