the petitioner by the learned court below. Learned counsel has referred to para 39 and 40 of the present petition to submit that the petitioner had always remained present at his place of posting at Madhupur and there was no occasion for the petitioner to avoid any summon issued by the opposite party and he submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. He further submits that the learned court below has not recorded the necessary satisfaction for the purposes of issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner and also for the purposes of issuance of order issuing process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has referred to the order issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner dated 20.11.2010 wherein, the submission of the opposite party has been recorded that the accused persons are concealing themselves from arrest, but no independent satisfaction of the court below has been recorded. He also refers to the order issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C and by referring to the said order, he submits that in the said order, no satisfaction of the court at all has been recorded calling for issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment passed by this Court reported in 2016 SCC online Jhar 1841 (Sunil Kr. Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand) and submits that it has been held by this Court following the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a note of caution was put that courts have to be extra cautious and careful while directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest and in any view of the matter, subjective satisfaction of learned court should be indicated in the order itself and absence of the same would render such order being illegal and not in accordance with law. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand opposes the prayer, but he is not in a position to dispute that the necessary satisfaction for issuance of non-
