ASHUTOSH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties through video conferencing.

(2.) This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.09.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in connection with FIR No. RC 17(A) of 2016-RCBI/ACB/RANCHI corresponding to Regular CBI Case No. RC 17(A) of 2016-R for the offence punishable under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 while working and posted at Indo Danish Tool Room during the period 01.04.2007 to 07.10.2016 amassed assets of Rs.1,96,97,628/- disproportionate to the known source of his income which he could not satisfactorily account for and the allegation against the petitioner no.2 is that she abetted the petitioner no.1 in accumulation of the assets beyond the known source of his income. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 19.08.2020, learned trial court found sufficient material on record for proceeding inter-alia against the petitioners for having committed offences punishable under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly, cognizance for the said offences were taken. It is further submitted that the case was fixed to 11.09.2020 for appearance and summons were issued to the accused persons who are the petitioners before this Court subsequently, summons were served upon both the petitioners and this fact is not in dispute. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners filed separate anticipatory bail applications before the trial court on 09.09.2020 and 10.09.2020 respectively and on the prayer of the petitioners for adjournment on the ground of illness of the learned counsels, the hearing of the said anticipatory bail applications were adjourned to 22.09.2020 and both the anticipatory bail applications were heard on 22.09.2020 but the learned trial court rejected the anticipatory bail applications. The petitioners thereafter, applied for certified copy of the rejection order. It is submitted Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that though in paragraph no.10 of the petition, it has been mentioned that in the summons received by the petitioners from the trial court, the date of appearance of the petitioners before the trial court was mentioned as 25.09.2020 but he fairly submits that he does not have any copy of the summons with him. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the petitioners applied for the certified copy of the rejection order of the anticipatory bail application on 24.09.2020 hence, it cannot be said that they were evading the Court proceeding but even then vide order dated 25.09.2020 non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioners by the trial court and the said order dated 25.09.2020 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioners is sought to be quashed in this petition. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said order of issuing warrant of arrest was passed in a mechanical manner without applying any judicial mind and without following the settled position of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharastra and Anr. , 2012 9 SCC 791 wherein in the facts of that case, when a complaint case involving offences punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code in relation to some incident alleged to have taken place in an Elite Club of Mumbai and a practising lawyer was the accused in the case and at a preliminary stage of the said complaint case which was filed against the practicing Advocate, when the case came up for hearing before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, non-bailable warrant of arrest was straight way issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.12 of that judgment quoted the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. , 2007 12 SCC 1 of the said judgment which reads as under:-