ANNAPURNA KUNDU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though this application has been filed for quashing of the first information report of Saraikella P.S. Case No. 105 of 2013 (G.R. No. 937 of 2013) registered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing of the order dated 8.1.2014 whereby warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner but the petitioner, at this stage, would not be pressing the prayer for quashing of the first information report of Saraikella P.S. Case No. 105 of 2013 rather that liberty be reserved with the petitioner to press later on when occasion does arise and hence, he will be confining his prayer for quashing of the order dated 8.1.2014. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it does appear that on a requisition being submitted by the I.O. stating therein that the petitioner is an accused, warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued on 8.1.2014 but that order never seems to be inconsonance with the provision as contained in Section 73 Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:--

(2.) From bare perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is manifest that it confers a power upon the Magistrate to issue warrant for arrest of three classes of persons, namely, (i) escaped convict, (ii) a proclaimed offender, and (iii) a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.

(3.) Here in the instant case as I have stated earlier, the warrant of arrest has been issued simply for the reason that the petitioner is an accused. The court, while passing an order for issuance of warrant of arrest, has never recorded that the petitioner was evading his arrest.