Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

08. Learned senior counsel further submitted that after the requisitions have been made in violation of law, the learned trial court without applying independent judicial mind, without taking note of any report or affidavit demonstrating failure of arrest, without recording satisfaction that the accused Patna High Court CR. WJC No.374 of 2022 dt.30-03-2026 was absconding or concealing himself and without complying the mandatory 30 days period after proclamation before attachment, on mere asking of the I.O., passed a composite order in the case of Musafir Singh, just a day after requisition and in the case of Kaushik Singh @ Santosh Singh on the same day, for issuance of warrant under Section 73, proclamation under Section 82 and attachment of property under Section 83 of the CrPC, the impugned orders thus violate the procedure established by law. Learned counsel again referred to the case of Pinki Kumari (supra) submitted that the learned Co-ordinate Bench while deprecating the act of police authority also criticized the passing of order invoking Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC by the learned trial court in mechanical and routine manner and observed that the power under Sections 82 and 83 are very drastic in nature and must only be used by applying judicial mind and on reasonable basis.

11. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, submitted that the settled common law maxim Sublato fundamento cadit opus provides that if the foundational order/action is illegal, void or non-existent, all subsequent or consequential actions built upon it automatically collapse. In the present case, the requisitions of the I.O. dated 31.03.2021 and 06.04.2021, respectively were illegal and in violation of law and procedural Patna High Court CR. WJC No.374 of 2022 dt.30-03-2026 due process, hence all the subsequently actions would already fall having no independent legal existence and the further order of the learned trial court issuing the proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC becomes unconstitutional. Learned senior counsel relied on the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davindere Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the initial order is bad then all the subsequent and consequential proceedings would suffer from illegality as it strikes at the very root of the fundamental order.

14. Lastly, Mr. Ojha submitted that the directions be issued for judicial sensitization and training to the learned Judicial Officers of the Bihar regarding procedural due process and interface with the prevailing law with respect to invocation of Sections 82 and 83 CrPC/84 and 85 BNSS and judicial adjudication.

15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State- respondents at the outset submitted that the present writ petitions are not maintainable as judicial orders have been challenged by filing the writ petitions. Moreover, the relief sought by the petitioners have become infructuous after arrest of the petitioners and the orders dated 01.04.2021 and 06.04.2021 have lost their efficacy. The petitioners have also been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel denied the contention made on behalf of the petitioners that police has not properly investigated the matter and submitted that after thorough investigation charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet have been filed and the case was found true against the petitioners and others. However, learned counsel conceded that the requisition made by the I.O. is not supported by affidavit or reasons or by any evidence. Learned counsel further admitted that the impugned orders are Patna High Court CR. WJC No.374 of 2022 dt.30-03-2026 not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law. However, he submitted that it is one of the rarest of rare cases and circumstances were of such nature that passing of the impugned orders became necessary as it was a case of murder of five persons of a village and situation has escalated and the situation could be contained only after passing of the impugned orders.

Similarly, in Usha Mishra (supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court has quoted the observation made in the case of Nalini Kant Agrawal (supra), wherein it has been held that though the court has power under Section 73 CrPC to issue warrant, it is only for the purposes of securing appearance before the court and not before the police. The power to secure warrant or issue warrant of arrest under Section 73 CrPC cannot be used solely for production of accused before the police in aid of investigation. It has been further held that while issuing warrant under Section 73 CrPC the Magistrate has to record finding that the accused persons were evading their arrest and this finding would depend on appreciation of facts pleaded in that regard and not on any ipse dixit of the investigating officer. If that is not done then Section 82 and/or Section 83 CrPC Patna High Court CR. WJC No.374 of 2022 dt.30-03-2026 would not come into play and would be illegal exercise of jurisdiction.