JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. 2023 with a prayer to quash the orders dated 02.08.2019 and 21.12.2019 by which respectively non-bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 726 of 2017 involving the offences punishable under Section 353/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 133 of Indian Electricity Act. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 02.08.2019 the I.O. of the case filed a petition with a prayer to issue warrant of arrest and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate In-charge, Seraikella allowed the prayer and directed the O/C to issue warrant of arrest against the accused person, who is the petitioner herein. On 21.12.2019 the I.O. of the case filed a petition for issue of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest ordered for issue of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1649 of 2024 that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate In-charge, Seraikella in a mechanical manner has issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner without recording any satisfaction that the petitioner is evading his arrest. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued vide order dated 21.12.2019 without following the due process of law and without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest which is a sine qua non for issuing proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the said order is an illegal one as the proclamation has been ordered to be issued without fixing any time or place for the appearance of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned G.A. III on the other hand opposes the prayer of the petitioner as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the very fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate In-charge, Seraikella and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella respectively have issued non-bailable warrant of arrest and the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. respectively, itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Magistrate to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests the power inter alia upon the Magistrate of the First Class to direct warrant to any person within the local jurisdiction for arrest inter alia, such person who is accused of non-bailable offence and evading his arrest. 7. Now coming to the said order dated 02.08.2019 though it has not been specifically mentioned in the said order itself about the petitioner being accused of having committed any non-bailable offence but perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is involved in commission of the offence punishable inter alia under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code which is a non-bailable offence but there is no observation by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate In-charge, Seraikella that the petitioner is evading arrest and as there is no material in the record to suggest that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate In-charge, Seraikella was satisfied that the petitioner was evading his arrest, hence, the order dated 02.08.2019 without any observation or recording of satisfaction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate In-charge, Seraikella that the petitioner is evading his arrest but still issuing the warrant of arrest, goes to show that the same has been issued without application of mind and is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the said order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate In-charge, Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 726 of 2017 is quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the said order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate In-charge, Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 726 of 2017 is quashed and set aside. 8. So far as the order dated 21.12.2019 is concerned, by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., it must mention the time and place for appearance of the petitioner in the order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is issued. As already indicated above since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has not fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner who is the accused person of this case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without complying the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 726 of 2017 be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 726 of 2017, is quashed and set aside. 10. The learned Magistrate may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 11. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.