JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition Criminal has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia with several prayers but at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner on the instruction of the petitioner, does not press the prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 19.05.2014 in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 20 of 2012 corresponding to SC/ ST case no. 07 of 2014 whereby and where under, the cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354, 380 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as the Section 3 (1)(x) (xi) of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, hence the said prayer is rejected as not pressed. 3. There are three other prayers also made in this writ petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 09.06.2015, in the said Ramgarh P.S. case no. 20 of 2012, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner by learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau. Perusal of the record reveals that it is not clear as to against whom, the non-bailable warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued by learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 15.05.2018 passed in the said case by the learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau by which, the proclamation under section 82 of CrPC has been issued against the petitioner in violation of the settled principle of law as well as the order dated 30.05.2022 by which, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the accused persons of the case, including the petitioner. 4. So far as the order dated 09.06.2015 is concerned, since it is not forthcoming from the same, as to against whom, the non-bailable warrant arrest was directed to be issued and though it is evident from the order dated 08.04.2013 passed in G.R. case no. 1486 of 2012 in connection with SC/ST case no. 4. So far as the order dated 09.06.2015 is concerned, since it is not forthcoming from the same, as to against whom, the non-bailable warrant arrest was directed to be issued and though it is evident from the order dated 08.04.2013 passed in G.R. case no. 1486 of 2012 in connection with SC/ST case no. 07 of 2014, which case has been registered consequent upon the case having been committed to the court of Sessions, that the petitioner- Dharmendra Vishwakarma submitted a bail bond and the same was accepted but there is no reference of the bail granted to the petitioner, having been cancelled in the order dated 09.06.2015, hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 09.06.2015. 5. So far as the order dated order dated 15.05.2018 is concerned, the perusal of the same reveals that by a single sentence order, learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau has directed for issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau has committed grave illegality by issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC without recording any 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. and that too, without fixing any time and place for appearance of the petitioner, hence, the order dated 15.05.2018 passed in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 20 of 2012 corresponding to SC/ ST case no. 07 of 2014 being not sustainable in law, be quashed and set aside. 7. So far as the order dated 30.05.2022 is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as there is no material in the record to suggest that the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 08.04.2013 in G.R. Case no. 1486 of 2012 by learned ACJM has been cancelled, nor there is any material in the record to suggest that any summon was ever issued to the petitioner, for his appearance in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau, hence, it is submitted that same is also not sustainable in law hence, the same be quashed and set aside. 8. 8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the very fact that learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau has directed for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau to be satisfied and the very fact that learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau has directed for issuance of fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest against the accused persons, goes to show that earlier also, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued inter alia against the petitioner, hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, so far as order dated 15.05.2018 passed in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 20 of 2012 corresponding to SC/ ST case no. 07 of 2014 is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that 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 Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the said order dated 15.05.2018 passed in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 20 of 2012 corresponding to SC/ ST case no. 07 of 2014 is not sustainable in law and learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. 10. Accordingly, order dated 15.05.2018 passed in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 07 of 2014 is not sustainable in law and learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau has committed illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. 10. Accordingly, order dated 15.05.2018 passed in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 20 of 2012 corresponding to SC/ ST case no.07 of 2014 is quashed and set aside. 11. So far as the order dated 27.04.2022/ 30.05.2022 passed in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 20 of 2012 corresponding to SC/ ST case no. 07 of 2014 is concerned, by the said order, learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau has directed for issuance of fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest against the accused persons of the case, including the petitioner but the undisputed fact remains that the bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 08.04.2013, as already indicated above, has not been cancelled nor there is any material to suggest that earlier any non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 27.04.2022/ 30.05.2022 passed in connection with Ramgarh P.S. case no. 20 of 2012 corresponding to SC/ ST case no. 07 of 2014 is not sustainable in law, accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. 12. learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Palamau may pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 13. This writ is petition is disposed of accordingly.