PEER MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rajeev Ratan Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

(2.) By means of the present criminal appeal under Sec. 14A-1, the appellant is assailing the legality and validity of the order dtd. 19/8/2020 and charge sheet dtd. 6/7/2020 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 88 of 2020, State v. Peer Mohammad, arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2019, under Ss. - 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 of IPC and Ss.

(3.) (2)5A and 3(1)S of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Pashchimi Sharira, DistrictKaushambi, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that charge sheet was submitted on 19/8/2020 and on the very same date, after taking cognizance, straight away non bailable warrant has been issued against the appellant, which is bad in law. It is next submitted that while issuing non bailable warrants, it is required on the part of Magistrate concerned to record satisfaction, but in the present case, no satisfaction has been recorded as to why, while taking cognizance, non bailable warrant has been issued . It is further submitted that it is required on the part of Courts to first issue summoning order, thereafter bailable warrant, then a non-bailable warrant, if required. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court passed in the matters of Smt. Usha Jain and another vs. State of U.P. and another (Application U/S 482 No. 19037 of 2018 , Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Misc. Application No. 1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 decided on 11/7/2022. 3. Learned counsels for opposite parties have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as well as legal submissions. I have considered the submissions advanced by counsels for parties and perused the records as well as judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court passed in Smt. Usha Jain (Supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).