Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants requires specific justifications and must not occur routinely; individual liberty should be prioritized unless necessitated by compelling circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, to assail the order dated 19.02.2020 passed in C.T. Case No. 354(A) of 2014 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 67 of 2021, wherein a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against Petitioner at the instance of the Investigating Officer.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 24.08.2014 a Written Complaint was submitted by one Sudarsan Sahoo to the I.I.C., Athagarh P.S., alleging that while he was proceeding along Kandarpur road, he observed a large gathering of people gather at a particular spot and saw an unknown person was lying there, bleeding profusely due to an injury to his throat.

(ii) When the complainant enquired about the cause of the injury, the Victim disclosed his name and stated that 7 to 8 people had followed and restrained him and his helper while they were travelling to Kolkata after loading aluminum from Angul by truck.

(iii) Thereafter, the helper of the truck was killed and his body was thrown into the jungle. The victim’s throat was also cut. Thereupon, the assailants looted the truck and left the injured person at the spot.

(iv) Thereafter, an F.I.R. was registered and an investigation was conducted, following which the Investigating Officer submitted a preliminary charge-sheet under Section 396,120B, 307 of I.P.C against three accused persons.

(v) Upon submission of the chargesheet, the cognizance was taken against the accused persons. Thereupon, the learned Court below, after considering the prayer of the I.O. had issued NBW against the accused persons vide order dated 19.02.2020.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.02.2020 passed in C.T. Case No. 354(a) of 2014 arising out of corresponding to S.T. Case No. 67 of 2021, whereby a Non- Bailable Warrant is issued against the Petitioner at the instance of the Investigating Officer.

(ii) The Petitioner submits that his name of the Petitioner did not figure in the F.I.R. dated 24.08.2014 and that, pursuant to said F.I.R., a preliminary charge-sheet dated 27.12.2014 was submitted by the I.O., wherein the Petitioner was also not shown as an accused person. Accordingly, the Petitioner was never treated as an accused or even as a suspect in the instant case.

(iii) The Petitioner states that in the prayer made by the I.O. it was alleged that raids had been conducted at the Petitioner’s residence and that, on several occasions, the Petitioner was avoiding arrest. However, it is contended that no such action was ever taken by the I.O. The Petitioner further states that that prior to the issuance of N.B.W., a summon ought to have been issued to the Petitioner.

(iv) The Petitioner further submits that the learned Court below failed to apply its judicious mind while allowing the prayer of the I.O., inasmuch as the final charge-sheet does not contain a single allegation against the Petitioner, nor has any material evidence been placed on record by the I.O. to substantiate that, the Petitioner had any active participation in the alleged offence.

(v) The Petitioner further states