DILIP GARODIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Vigilance.

(2.) This application is directed against the order dated 21/06/2014, passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, in Special Case No. 15(B) of 2009, whereby and whereunder warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner.

(3.) The ground for challenge of the said order is that the Magistrate without satisfying himself that the petitioner has been evading arrest, has passed an order for issuance of warrant of arrest nonbailable against the petitioner and, thereby, it is not in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, it was submitted that there has been inconsistency in the statement with respect to matter relating to evading or arrest in the statement, made in the requisition, memo of evidence and in the counter affidavit. In this regard, it was pointed out that in the requisition, upon which warrant of arrest has been issued, statement has been made that on three occasions the house of the petitioner was raided, whereas in the memo of evidence, submitted before the Court below, two dates have been referred to as 13/02/2014 as well as 18/02/2014, whereas in the counter affidavit, filed in this case, five dates have been mentioned as the dates on which the house of this petitioner was raided. Those dates has been referred to as 13/02/2014, 18/02/2014, 03/06/2014, 05/06/2014 and 09/06/2014. By referring those dates mentioned in the counter affidavit, it was submitted that though the statement is there that when the I.O. raided the house of the petitioner the persons living in the neighbourhood disclosed to that the petitioner has been evading arrest, but the I.O. has not recorded his own satisfaction that the petitioner has been evading arrest and, as such, the impugned order is fit to be set aside.