Issuance of non-bailable warrants must be judicious, adhering to procedural safeguards that protect individual liberties, with courts required to balance societal interests and personal rights.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.L. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

2. Before any deliberation on the impugned orders, it is apposite to state the background facts, in brief, at first. One Smti. Mamata Mandal was the informant in the First Information Report [FIR] lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Mayang Police Station on 05.12.2021 in connection with Mayang Police Station Case no. 270/2021 registered under Sections 498A/494/34, INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC]. In the FIR, the petitioner herein was named as accused no. 1 and one Smti. Sarmila Mandal was named as accused no. 2. It was inter alia alleged that in an incident occurred on 31.10.2021, both the accused persons assaulted the informant and drove her and her son, aged about 6 years, out of her matrimonial house.

3. After investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case submitted a charge-sheet vide Charge-Sheet no. 167/2021 on 26.12.2021. In the Charge- Sheet, the petitioner was the only charge-sheeted accused and the I.O. stated that there were sufficient materials against the petitioner to stand in the trial for commission of the offences under Section 498A and Section 494 of the IPC. The other accused person, Smti. Sarmila Mandal, named in the FIR, was not charge-sheeted. The case was registered as Police Report Case [PRC] No. 233/2022.

4. When the case records of PRC No. 233/2022 was put up before the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate [S], Morigaon [‘the Trial Court’, for short] on 19.08.2023, the accused-petitioner was found absent. The Trial Court recorded that the summons issued to the accused-petitioner had returned after due service. On that day, that is, on 19.08.2023, a petition being Petition no. 2905/2023 was filed by the father of the accused-petitioner, namely, Shri Dhiren Mandal stating that he had no communication with the accused-petitioner/his son for last about one year and eight months. The Trial Court having considered the same, proceeded to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest [NBWA] against the accused-petitioner.

5. On subsequent dates, 13.10.2023, 12.12.2023, 29.01.2024, 05.03.2024, 09.04.2024, 21.05.2024, 29.06.2024, 01.08.2024 and 20.09.2024, the Trial Court recording absences of the accused-petitioner before it without steps, ordered for issuance of fresh non-bailable warrants of arrest [NBWAs] against the accused-petitioner.

6. When the case was posted on 06.11.2024, the Trial Court had passed the following order :-

Accused Sri Baluram Mandal is absent without any steps.

I have gone through the record. It reveals from the case record, that several steps were taken against the accused person. The report of NBWA issued against the accused person returned with report, that the accused person is not found in the given address and as per his family member, he left home about one and half year ago.

Thus, considering the materials on record as well as the report submitted, accused Baluram Mandal declared as proclaimed offender and the case is kept filed against the accused person until his production on standing warrant of arrest.

Hence, issue standing warrant against the accused person Baluram Mandal. Mark a copy to the concerned O/C.

7. Mr. Mandal, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has submitted that the accused-petitioner is a daily labourer and in order to earn liv