Patna High Court
Karnvir Singh Yadav @ Lallu Mukhiya vs The State Of Bihar on 23 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22151 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2023 Thana- BARH District- Patna
======================================================
Karnvir Singh Yadav @ Lallu Mukhiya Son of Late Ramvilash Prasad
Resident of Village - Gulab Bag, P.S.- Barh, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 23-04-2025
Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present quashing petition preferred under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the
"Cr.P.C.") preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order
dated 03.03.2025 as passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna in connection with Barh P.S.
Case No. 98 of 2023, by which a direction has been given for
issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner.
3. During pendency of the present quashing petition,
one interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2025 has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
2/22
been also filed in the main quashing petition to amend the
prayer as to quash the order dated 28.03.2025 also, through
which learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh,
Patna in connection with aforesaid case on the basis of
requisition of the Investigating Officer further directed for
issuance of order of proclamation under Section 82 of the
Cr.P.C./84 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(in short the "B.N.S.S.").
4. The brief facts of the case as it transpires from the
First Information Report (in short the 'I.P.C.') that present
occurrence of murder took place when the informant namely,
Kumar Gaurav, resident of village - Dullapur, P.S. - Bind,
District - Nalanda, was returning from his motorcycle with his
father and sister after giving examination at A.N.S. College,
Barh around 1:30 P.M. on 10th February, 2023. It appears
from the narration of F.I.R. that when they crossed the over
bridge of Konhar, then three people sitting on two
motorcycles had overtaken them and stopped them by giving
hand signals. Consequent upon, his father stopped the
motorcycle, the Arun Yadav of the village Gwasa Sheikhpura
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
3/22
pushed their motorcycle, as a result of which his father fell
down. It further transpired from the allegation that his grand-
father namely, Nageshwar Prasad, son of Haro Yadav was
also present there, who ordered to fire, upon which co-
accused Bablu Yadav of village - Gulabbagh fired on the chest
of his father, as a result of which his father fell down on the
ground and died on spot. It is further alleged that in order to
save his life, when the informant started to run in backward
direction, Sanjay Yadav, son of Mahendra Yadav of village -
Mangarchak also fired on him, however, bullet could not hit
him. after the occurrence, the accused persons fled away
through bypass road on motorcycle. The informant also
identified the other persons accompanied the main co-accused
persons, who were his uncle Ranjit Yadav and Mauli Yadav
having arms in their hands and alleged that they
provoked/instigated the aforesaid named main co-accused
persons, during the occurrence. It was stated that the present
occurrence took place in the background of partition suit
which is pending in the district court of Nalanda, which was
instituted by his father against his grand-father and brothers
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
4/22
for partition and distribution of ancestral property in
accordance with law.
5. On the basis of aforesaid information, a First
Information Report bearing Barh P.S. Case No. 98 of 2023
dated 10.02.2023 has been lodged for the alleged offences
under Sections 302/120B/34 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms
Act.
6. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and his
name transpired during course of investigation.
7. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the implication of
petitioner with the present case is a malicious prosecution by
the police officials/police administration under the dictates of
his political rivals. It is submitted that present is a classical
example that how an innocent person can be booked in a
criminal case by police administration at the dictates of the
political goons, when even after passing substantive period of
investigation, the name of petitioner did not surfaced in the
present case. The involvement of petitioner was not
transpired during the course of investigation, neither he was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
5/22
named by any members of the family of the informant during
investigation. Whereas, all of a sudden, a petition is being
filed on 28th February, 2025 by the investigating officer to
the effect that the main accused of the present case namely,
Bablu Yadav has yet not been arrested in this case and this
petitioner is involved in saving the said main accused persons
from their arrest. On the basis of aforesaid concocted story as
an afterthought, the name of petitioner transpired in the
occurrence, whereafter the investigating officer made a
requisition before the court below on 24.02.2025 for issuance
of non-bailable warrant which was issued on 03.03.2025.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Sinha that anticipatory bail
prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the court below
through its order dated 17.03.2025, after which the petitioner
moved before the High Court and pressed for his anticipatory
bail through Cr. Misc. No. 21173/2025, which is pending
before this Hon'ble Court.
9. It is submitted that during the pendency of
aforesaid anticipatory bail petition, requisition was made on
28.03.2025
by the I.O. that petitioner evading arrest and,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
therefore, order of proclamation is required. Consequent
upon, learned trial court vide order dated 28.03.2025 i.e. on
the same very day, issued the process of proclamation under
Section 82 of the Cr.P.C./84 of the B.N.S.S., which has been
pasted at the main gate of the residence of petitioner, which
is a joint house, where other family members of the petitioner
also reside.
10. It is further submitted by Mr. Sinha that order
dated 28.03.2025 was passed by learned trial court in a very
mechanical manners. It is pointed out that petitioner is not a
escaped convict, proclaimed offender (as on date when the
order of proclamation was issued) or a person who is evading
arrest.
11. It is submitted by Mr. Sinha that before making
prayer for non-bailable warrant and prayer for issuing process
of proclamation, it is incumbent upon the investigating
authority to show that they had made attempt to track and
execute the warrant up to the satisfaction of the court that
the petitioner/accused actively evaded such attempts.
12. It is further submitted that the provision of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
section 82 of Cr.P.C. (84 of the B.N.S.S.) should be applied if
any court has reason to believe that any person against whom
a warrant has been issued is absconded or is concealing
himself so that such warrant cannot be executed. Such court
may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at
a specified place and specified time not less than 30 days
from the date of publishing such proclamation.
13. It is also pointed out that investigating officer
failed to disclose the property of the accused persons which
has also not been taken care by the learned court below
before issuance of proclamation process, therefore, the I.O.
concerned committed a serious error as to make prayer for
NBW and for issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of
the B.N.S.S. against this petitioner without having any
supporting material on affidavit.
14. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel
that police has ample right to arrest the accused persons in
the case instituted for the offences which are cognizable and
non-bailable and there is no need for making a prayer for
issuance of a non-bailable warrant of arrest. It is submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
that aforesaid prayer was made when the anticipatory bail
petition of petitioner is pending for adjudication before this
High Court. The aforesaid prayer of I.O. before the learned
trial court is only to deprive the petitioner from his statutory
right of anticipatory bail in view of legal ratio as available
through legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter
of Srikant Upadhyay and Others Vs. State of Bihar and
Anr. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 282.
15. It is also submitted that as per settled legal
principles, non-bailable warrant of arrest cannot be issued
against the accused persons in aid of investigation. It is
submitted that petitioner is an accused in Barh P.S. Case No.
820 of 2024 and Barh P.S. Case No. 831 of 2024 beside the
aforesaid case. In this context, it is further submitted that
informant retracted his version qua involvement of the
petitioner through his petition dated 05.03.2025 filed before
A.C.J.M. - 1st, Barh, Patna.
16. It is submitted by Mr. Sinha, learned senior
counsel that petitioner apprehend his false implication out of
political rivalry as he contested the election of Member of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
Legislative Assembly in the year 2022 as an independent
candidate and for that informatory petition under Section 39
of the Cr.P.C. was lodged with A.C.J.M. 1 st, Barh, Patna
numbering 820/2024 on 04.10.2024.
17. While concluding argument, it is submitted by Mr.
Sinha that in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances,
issuance of impugned order qua NBW against petitioner and
also for initiation of proclamation proceeding under Section
84 of the B.N.S.S. (82 of the Cr.P.C.) appears bad in the eyes
of law and same to be quashed/set-aside.
18. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Sinha, learned
senior counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble
Supreme Court as available through Raghuvansh
Dewanchand Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 791.
19. At the outset, it is submitted by Mr. Ajay Mishra,
learned A.P.P. for the State that petitioner is a man of
criminal antecedents and during course of investigation, it
transpires that he is the main conspirator, as entire conspiracy
qua occurrence took place at his petrol pump located in Barh,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
Patna. It is further submitted in this context that statement of
the informant was also recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. during investigation. It is further pointed out by Mr.
Mishra that there is no time limit of investigation of such a
heinous offence. It is submitted that instead of surrendering
before the court below as to join the investigation, the
petitioner/accused is evading his arrest making police helpless
and, therefore, to secure his presence before the court of law,
the police rightly prayed for NBW. It is pointed out that for
praying proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., issuance of
non-bailable warrant is a pre-condition.
20. It is submitted further by Mr. Sinha that this is a
growing trend when petitioner/accused gathered that their
anticipatory bail petition is likely to be refused on the ground
of maintainability, as proceeding under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.
initiated against them, as of present case, they preferred
quashing petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. on vague
grounds. It is pointed out that this trend required to be
checked for the reason that the relief, which could not prayed
directly, cannot be obtained indirectly.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
21. While concluding argument, Mr. Mishra, learned
A.P.P., submitted that to secure the presence of the
accused/petitioner before the court of law, the investigating
agency/police took steps for praying NBW and also for
initiation of proceeding under section 82 of the Cr.P.C. These
are the legal tools, with police to secure the presence of
evading accused/petitioner before the court of law and,
therefore, same cannot be questioned, however he conceded
that serious efforts to nab petitioner appears lacking.
22. It is pointed out that the police can directly
prayed for NBW before the court of law, as there is no such
bar. Police requisition in itself may be a ground for
satisfaction for court concerned for issuing NBW. It is
submitted that petitioner through this petition admitted that
publication of proclamation already found pasted in the joint
house. It is submitted that description of property is not
required at this stage, as if petitioner appeared before the
court, then, certainly further proceeding under Section 83 of
Cr.P.C. would be infructuous. It is submitted that petitioner
not appears aggrieved with impugned order, neither both
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
orders appears illegal, therefore, same should not be quashed
by exercising extraordinary power, available under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., which otherwise is to be exercised very
sparingly particularly in the heinous offence like murder.
23. It is submitted that the submission as NBW
cannot be issued in the aid of investigation is a misconceived
submission of Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner as there is no such legal bar.
24. This petition was pressed with limited prayer
challenging issuance of NBW and also initiation of process
under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. qua petitioner/accused
pending investigation.
25. It would be apposite to reproduce Section 82 of
the Cr.P.C./84 of B.N.S.S., which reads as under for ready
reference:
"82. Proclamation for person absconding.--(1) If
any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking
evidence or not) that any person against whom a
warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is
concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be
executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation
requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a
specified time not less than thirty days from the date of
publishing such proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:--
(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place
of the town or village in which such person
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the
house or homestead in which such person ordinarily
resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or
village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous
part of the Court-house;
(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the
proclamation to be published in a daily
newspaper circulating in the place in which such person
ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the
proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly
published on a specified day, in the manner specified in
clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence
that the requirements of this section have been complied
with, and that the proclamation was published on such
day.
(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section
(1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence
punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392,
393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436,
449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
and such person fails to appear at the specified place and
time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after
making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a
proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that
effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply
to a declaration made by the Court under
sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation
published under sub-section (1)."
26. It would be apposite to reproduce the police
requisition dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure P/6) and
impugned order dated 03.03.2025 (page 48) of the
learned trial court, which reads as under:
Annexure P/6
lsok esa]
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
ekuuh; vij eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh egksn;
ck<+ U;k;ky; ftyk&iVuk
izlax&ck<+ Fkkuk dk.M la[;k&98@23 fnukad&10-02-2023 /kkjk&302@120ch@34
Hkk0n0fo0 ,oa 27 Arms Act
fo'k;& dk.M ds vizkFkfedh vfHk;qDr d.kZohj flag ;kno firk jkefoykl ;kno lk0
xqykcckx Fkkuk ck<+ ftyk iVuk ds fo:) okjaV vf/ki= fuxZr djus ds laca/k esaA
egk"k;]
mijksDr izlaxk/khu fo'k; ds lnaHkZ esa fuosnuiwoZd dguk gS fd ck<+ Fkkuk dk.M
la[;k&98@23 fnukad&10-02-2023 /kkjk&302@120ch@34 Hkk0n0fo0 ,oa 27 Arms Act
ds dk.M ds vizkFkfedh vfHk;qDr d.kZohj flag ;kno mQZ yYyw eqf[k;k firk Lo0
jkefoykl ;kno lk0 xqykcckx Fkkuk ck<+ ftyk iVuk fxj¶rkjh ds Mj ls fQjkj py
jgs gSAa
vr% Jheku ls fouez vuqjks/k gS fd vizkFkfedh vfHk;qDr d.kZohj flag ;kno mQZ
yYyw eqf[k;k firk jkefoykl ;kno Lkk0 xqykcckx Fkkuk&ck<+ ftyk iVuk ds fo:)
okjaV vf/ki= fuxZr djus dh d`ik dh tk,A
fo"oklHkktu
24-02-25
iq0v0fu0
ck<+ Fkkuk] iVuk
Impugned Order dated 03.03.2025
Barh Ps 98/23 (264/23)
03-03-25: bl dkaM ds vuqla/kku drkZ }kjk ,d vkosnu i= nsdj fuosnu djrs gS
bl dkaM ds vizkFkfedh vfHk;qDr d.kZohj flag ;kno mQZ yYyq eqf[k;k ds fo:)
fxj¶rkjh okjaV fuxZr djus dh izkFkZuk djrs gSA
ns[kk vfHkys[k dk ds"k Mk;jh dk voyksdu fd;kA voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd
vfHk;qDr ds fo:) izkFkfedh esa yxk, x, /kkjk 302 Hkk0n0fo0 ,oa 27 "kL= vfkfu;e
xEHkhj izo`fr dk rFkk ds'k Mk;jh ds /kkjk ua0 112 fnukad 2-1-25 /kkjk u0
115]116]117]123]131] ,oa 138 esa vfHk;qDr ds fo:) Ik;kZIr lk{; miyC/k gSA
vr% izkFkZuk Lohdkj djrs gq, mDr vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vtekurh; fxj¶rkjh ckjaV fuxZr
djus dk vkns"k fn;k tkrk gSA
g0 vLi'V
27. It would further be apposite to reproduce letter
dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P/4) for initiation of
proceeding under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and letter dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
28.03.2025 (Annexure P/10) for better understanding of
the fact, which reads as under:
Annexure P/4
28-03-25 bl dk.M ds vuqla/kkudrkZ ds }kjk ,d vkosnu i= nsdj
fuosnu djrs gSA bl dk.M ds vfHk;qDr d.kZohj flag ;kno mQZ yYyw
eqf[k;k ds fo:) bLrsgkj fuxZr djus dh izkFkZuk djrs gSA
ns[kkA izkFkZuk Lohdkj djrs gq, mDr vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 82 n0iz0l0
ds vUrxZr bLrsgkj fuxZr djus dk vkns"k fn;k tkrk gSA
g0 vLi'V
Annexure P/10
lsok esa]
ekuuh; vij eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh egksn;
ck<+ U;k;ky;] ftyk&iVuk
izlax&ck<+ Fkkuk dk.M la[;k&98@23 fnukad&10-02-2023 /kkjk&302@120
ch@34 Hkk0n0fo0 ,oa 27 Arms Act
fo'k;& dk.M ds vizkFkfedh vfHk;qDr d.kZohj flag ;kno firk jkefoykl ;kno
lk0 xqykcckx Fkkuk ck<+ ftyk iVuk ds fo:) bfLrgkj vf/ki= fuxZr djus ds
laca/k esaA
egk"k;]
mijksDr izlaxk/khu fo'k; ds lanHkZ esa fuosnuiwoZd dguk gS fd ck<+ Fkkuk
dk.M la[;k&98@23 fnukad&10-02-2023 /kkjk&302@120ch@34 Hkk0n0fo0 ,oa
27 Arms Act ds dk.M ds vizkFkfedh vfHk;qDr d.kZohj flag ;kno mQZ yYyw
eqf[k;k firk Lo0 jkefoykl ;kno lk0 xqykcckx Fkkuk ck<+ ftyk iVuk okjaV
fuxZr gksus ds ckn viuh fxj¶rkjh ds Mj ls vius ?kj ls yxkrkj fQjkj py
jgs gSaA budh fxj¶rkjh gsrq buds fo:) bfLrgkj vf/ki= fuxZr fd, tkus dh
vfr vko";drk gSA
vr% Jheku ls fouez vuqjks/k gS fd vizkFkfedh vfHk;qDr d.kZohj flag
;kno mQZ yYyw eqf[k;k firk jkefoykl ;kno lk0 xqykcckx Fkkuk ck<+ ftyk
iVuk ds fo:) bfLrgkj vf/ki= fuxZr djus dh d`ik dh tk,A
vuqyXud&okjaV vf/ki= dk rkfeyk izfrosnuA
fo"oklHkktu
28-03-25
iq0v0fu0
ck<+ Fkkuk] iVukA
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
28. From perusal of records and the argument as
canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it
appears that petitioner/accused was much aware about the
proceeding as he prayed for anticipatory bail before the
learned trial court and when it was rejected, as discussed
aforesaid, the petitioner moved for his anticipatory bail before
this Hon'ble Court, which is pending for adjudication as Cr.
Misc. No. 21173/2025. Admittedly, process under Section 83
of Cr.P.C. has not been initiated against this petitioner,
therefore, the submission, as advanced by Mr. Sinha, learned
senior counsel, that description of property was not
mentioned by I.O. while praying for publication under Section
82 of the Cr.P.C. appears not convincing at this stage, which
was raised as the main objection.
29. From perusal of records and annexures referred
aforesaid, it appears that police did not make any serious
efforts to nab the petitioner/accused before pressing the
prayer of NBW, which can only be pressed when it appears to
the investigating agency that despite of serious efforts, the
police is not in a position to nab the accused/petitioner as he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
is concealing himself, so that warrant cannot be executed.
30. It appears from perusal of aforesaid requisition
and order of the court that police is completely silent that
what efforts were made by them to nab the petitioner and
without making any such effort, simply to satisfy legal
formalities, requisitions were made for issuance of NBW and
also to initiate process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. The
facts was also ignored which is to be taken care by the learned
trial court.
31. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court
finds that present petition is devoid of any merit and un-
occasioned as same appears a deliberate attempt to save
prayer of anticipatory bail pressed by petitioner before this
Court, as discussed aforesaid. Certainly, the relief prima-facie
which cannot be obtained directly, cannot be obtained
indirectly also.
32. It appears apposite to reproduce para 28 of
Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin case (supra), which
reads as under:
"28. However, before parting with the judgment, we feel that
in order to prevent such a paradoxical situation, we are faced
with in the instant case, and to check or obviate the possibility
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
of misuse of an arrest warrant, in addition to the statutory and
constitutional requirements to which reference has been made
above, it would be appropriate to issue the following
guidelines to be adopted in all cases where non-bailable
warrants are issued by the courts:
28.1. All the High Court shall ensure that the subordinate
courts use printed and machine numbered Form 2 for issuing
warrant of arrest and each such form is duly accounted for;
28.2. Before authenticating, the court must ensure that
complete particulars of the case are mentioned on the
warrant;
28.3. The presiding Judge of the Court (or responsible officer
specially authorised for the purpose in case of High Courts)
issuing the warrant should put his full and legible signatures
on the process, also ensuring that Court seal bearing complete
particulars of the Court is prominently endorsed thereon;
28.4. The court must ensure that warrant is directed to a
particular police officer (or authority) and, unless intended to
be open-ended, it must be returnable whether executed or
unexecuted, on or before the date specified therein;
28.5. Every court must maintain a register (in the format
given below at p. 804), in which each warrant of arrest issued
must be entered chronologically and the serial number of such
entry reflected on the top right hand of the process;
28.6. No warrant of arrest shall be issued without being
entered in the register mentioned above and the court
concerned shall periodically check/monitor the same to
confirm that every such process is always returned to the
court with due report and placed on the record of the case
concerned;
28.7. A register similar to the one in para 28.5 supra shall be
maintained at the police station concerned. The Station House
Officer of the police station concerned shall ensure that each
warrant of arrest issued by the court, when received is duly
entered in the said register and is formally entrusted to a
responsible officer for execution;
28.8. Ordinarily, the courts should not give a long time for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
return or execution of warrants, as experience has shown that
warrants are prone to misuse if they remain in control of
executing agencies for long;
28.9. On the date fixed for the return of the warrant, the
court must insist upon a compliance report on the action taken
thereon by the Station House Officer of the police station
concerned or the officer in charge of the agency concerned;
28.10. The report on such warrants must be clear, cogent
and legible and duly forwarded by a superior police officer, so
as to facilitate fixing of responsibility in case of misuse;
28.11. In the event of warrant for execution beyond
jurisdiction of the court issuing it, procedure laid down in
Sections 78 and 79 of the Code must be strictly and
scrupulously followed; and
28.12. In the event of cancellation of the arrest warrant by
the court, the order cancelling warrant shall be recorded in the
case file and the register maintained. A copy thereof shall be
sent to the authority concerned, requiring the process to be
returned unexecuted forthwith. The date of receipt of the
unexecuted warrant will be entered in the aforesaid registers.
A copy of such order shall also be supplied to the accused.
Format of the Register
sl. The Case Name The Date of Date of Date of Due Report The Remarks
No. number title and and officers/ judicial issue cancella date returned action
printed on particul particul person order tion, if of on taken as
the form ars ars of to directin any return reported
used the whom g arrest
person directed warrant
against to be
whom issued
warrant
of
arrest is
issued
(accuse
d
witness)
33. However, before parting with the judgment, it
deems necessary to highlight the unprofessional and partisan
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
conduct of the police in the case at hand. The petitioner is an
accused in a heinous case punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 120B/34 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act.
He is man of criminal antecedents. In course of investigation,
copious of evidence has surfaced, suggesting complicity of
accused/petitioner, but the manner in which the police acted
is quite strange as instead of making all out efforts to nab the
accused/petitioner, who is wanted in a case of heinous offence
like murder, prayer for non-bailable warrant was made before
the court below without any serious efforts to arrest the
accused/petitioner. The police officials proceeded in a
lethargic way by making a prayer for issuance of NBW, which
is only a legal pre-condition for initiation of proclamation
under section 82 of the Cr.P.C., only to guard its lethargic and
un-professional approach, which appears helping
petitioner/accused otherwise by giving petitioner/accused an
occasion under the law, which does not appear prima-facie
called for. The manner in which the police officials have made
their efforts to arrest the evading accused/petitioner suggest
prima-facie suspicion regarding their professionalism which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
requires an inquiry by none other than Director General of
Police, Bihar.
34. Accordingly, Director General of Police, Bihar is
directed to enquire personally into the matter and to take
overall remedial measures as this trend is appearing growing,
where without making any serious effort to arrest an
accused/petitioner in heinous offence like present, police
straightway approach the court for issuance of NBW. No
doubt, the burden of arrest and investigation is upon police,
which cannot be diluted merely by fulfilling the legal
formalities like compliance of section 82 & 83 of the Cr.P.C.
and, thereafter, submission of charge-sheet against accused
persons showing them absconder in hurried and mechanical
manner.
35. It also appears in recent past that the courts
below are issuing NBW and initiation of process under Section
82 of the Cr.P.C. without compliance of Raghuvansh
Dewanchand Bhasin case (supra). Compliance of para 28
of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin case (supra), as
discussed aforesaid, appears going down to dust in actual
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22151 of 2025 dt.23-04-2025
practice by subordinate courts in recent past.
36. Accordingly, learned Registrar General is directed
to circulate this order to all the concerned District Judges for
compliance of the aforesaid direction of Raghuvansh
Dewanchand Bhasin case (supra) as discussed in para-32
of the judgment by trial courts while dealing with such
business.
37. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
38. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to Director
General of Police, Bihar, for its immediate compliance and
also to learned Registrar General of this Court for circulation,
as discussed above.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 10.04.2025
Uploading Date 23.04.2025
Transmission Date 23.04.2025
