The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that there cannot be any straight- jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the non bailable warrant of arrest and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner had filed for the quashing of an order.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted non-bailable that the notice was issued under Section 41A CrPC asking the Petitioner to appear before the police, however, no sufficient time was provided and the Petition was unable to appear. Thereafter, the I.O filed an application for issuing the NBW and the learned court passed the order to issue NBW against Petitioner. Furthermore, the process was issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It was furthermore submitted that as per Section 73 of the Cr.P.C., the learned court is required to move, however, the learned court, only on the petition of the I.O. has passed the aforesaid two orders.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that non-bailable warrants interfere with an individual's personal liberty when they are issued. Because an individual's most valuable rights are violated by arrest and imprisonment, learned courts must exercise considerable caution when issuing non-bailable warrants.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors.
The court furthermore observed that no straight-forward formula exists for the issuance of warrants, but generally speaking, non-bailable warrants should not be issued unless the accused is suspected of committing a heinous crime and it is believed that he will likely tamper with or destroy the evidence or elude the legal system.
The court noted that for issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the learned court satisfaction is required to be recorded in the said order, which is lacking in the case in hand and further in the said order, date and time have not been indicated in the order issuing process, which is against the mandate of law.
Based on these considerations, the court quashed and set aside the impugned orders by which Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the Petition.
Case Title: Chandan Kumar V. State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 572 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Utkarsh Krishna, Advocate.
Advocate for the State: Mr. Sanket Khanna, A.C. to A.A.G.-V.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
