Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Bharat Kumar Yadav @ Bharat Kr. Yadav son of late Subhas Manjhi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 1244 of 2025
Decided on : 16-06-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate:Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate:Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate:Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl. P.P.
The illegal issuance of non-bailable warrants without necessary procedural requisites renders such orders unsustainable in law.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Criminal proceedings - Quashing of non-bailable warrant of arrest - The petitioner sought to quash the order issuing a non-bailable warrant without service of summon or execution report of bailable warrant - Order dated 11.12.2023 held illegal due to procedural lapses. (Paras 2, 4, 7, 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The issuance of warrants must follow due process; bailable warrants cannot be issued without service report, and non-bailable warrants without execution report. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash a non-bailable warrant issued after being summoned without a service report and subsequent to a charge sheet for offences under IPC. The first prayer for quashing the whole proceeding was not pressed.
Findings of Court:
The court found the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest unjust and unsustainable due to lack of adherence to procedural requirements.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the non-bailable warrant issued without necessary reports was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that lawful warrant issuance necessitates compliance with procedural requirements, undermining the legality of the warrant issued.
Result: The order dated 11.12.2023 quashed; petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's bail status and case background. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against illegality of non-bailable warrant. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of procedural illegality. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's decision to quash the arrest order. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with two fold prayers but the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to press the first prayer of quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.08.2019 and only confines to the prayer for quashing the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 94 of 2018 in which consequent upon charge sheet having been submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code; the learned court issue long bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
3. Accordingly, the first prayer of quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.08.2019 is rejected as not pressed.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was on police bail. After submission of charge sheet, summon was issued to the petitioner who is the accused person of the case and without receipt of the service report of the summon upon the petitioner, vide order dated 21.05.2022 bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the petitioner and without execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner, vide order dated 11.12.2023 non-bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the petitioner.
5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that issuance of such non-bailable warrant of arrest is illegal hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is then submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the learned trial court on 07.07.2025. Hence, the second prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that without the service report of the summon issued against the petitioner, bailable warrant of arrest has been issued and without execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka , though vide order dated 23.03.2021 called for the report of the service of summon but certainly committed illegality by issuing the bailable warrant of arrest on 21.05.2022, against the petitioner in G.R. No. 620 of 2019, without receipt of the service report of the summon upon the petitioner and similarly, without the execution report of bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner, committed a grave illegality by issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner on 11.12.2023.
8. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 11.12.2023 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner is not sustainable in law.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 94 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.
10. As undertaken by the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial court on 07.07.2025.
11. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
