Execution of coercive processes without service of summons or recording satisfaction of evasion is unsustainable in law.

The petitioners challenged a series of interlocutory orders (dated between 2005 and 2013) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar, in P.C.R. Case No. 518 of 2002

These orders transitioned the proceedings from summons to bailable warrants, then non-bailable warrants (NBW), and finally culminated in the issuance of proclamations under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., attachment of property under Section 83, and declaring the petitioners "proclaimed offenders" while consigning the record to the record room

notably, several of these orders were passed despite the court acknowledging that service reports for the initial summons had not been received

During the pendency of these petitions, one petitioner (Ram Naresh Ram) died, and his name was deleted from the cause title

1. Whether a Magistrate can issue a bailable or non-bailable warrant of arrest without ensuring the service of summons or recording satisfaction that the accused is evading arrest

2. Whether the court can simultaneously issue a proclamation under Section 82 and an attachment order under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C. without specific statutory satisfaction

3. Whether an accused can be declared a proclaimed offender and the record consigned without material evidence of absconding or lack of immediate prospect of arrest

Section 73 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers a Magistrate to issue warrants against persons accused of non-bailable offences only if they are "evading arrest"

Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C., establishing that simultaneous issuance of proclamation and attachment requires a specific satisfaction (via affidavit or otherwise) that the accused is about to dispose of or remove property from the court's jurisdiction

The principle from Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 41, which mandates that for proceedings under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C., the court must be strictly satisfied that the accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arrest

The High Court found that the trial court committed a "grave illegality" by issuing bailable warrants on 29.11.2005 and 24.07.2010 despite noting that service reports for summons were never received

Regarding the NBWs issued on 28.02.2007 and 21.04.2011, the court noted the Magistrate failed to record the mandatory satisfaction that the petitioners were evading arrest as required by Section 73

The simultaneous orders under Sections 82 and 83 on 10.06.2013 were held invalid because the trial court failed to fix a time/place for appearance and lacked evidence of property disposal/removal

the order of 05.09.2013 declaring the petitioners absconders was deemed "patently perverse" because the court acted without any execution reports or evidence of proclamation, violating the strict standards for Section 299

The trial court was directed that it may pass fresh orders only in strict accordance with the law