The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in choosing the appropriate legal recourse under the Code of Criminal Procedure based on the respondent's conduct and the interest of justice.

Barin Ghosh, C.J. -

In the public interest litigation registered as Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 66 of 2012, the contention of the petitioner was that as many as 15 criminal cases were filed alleging commission of various offences against respondent No. 8 and in connection therewith some non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued but they are not being executed, despite the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing respondent No. 8 to surrender before the Courts before whom those cases are pending. It was contended that there is no law and order in the State as hardcore criminals are being protected by the administration. In course of hearing the writ petition, it transpired that in one of those cases a non-bailable warrant was issued followed by a proclamation, but no effort was made to pursue the same effectively, and at the same time wife of the respondent No. 8 has been provided with a Police gunman. It also transpired that in relation to the self-same case, an application made under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been allowed without considering public interest in the withdrawal of the said case. The State Government and the respondent No. 8 agreed to recall the order allowing the said application. By reason thereof, the non-bailable warrant as well as the proclamation stood arrive. We, accordingly, while disposing of the public interest litigation directed a fresh decision to be rendered on the application under section 321 of the Code, and at the same time asked the respondent No. 8 to surrender before the Court and to apply for bail. We also directed that in the event such surrender is made at or before 11 A.M. in the morning and simultaneously a bail application is filed, the Court shall decide the bail application in accordance with law immediately and make over a copy of the order to respondent No. 8. In course of hearing the said public interest litigation, it also transpired that there is another case where also there is a pending non-bailable warrant of arrest against re­spondent No. 8. In relation to the said non-bailable warrant, while disposing of the public interest litigation, we permitted one month's time to take such recourse to law as the respondent No. 8 may be advised to challenge the said non-bailable warrant of arrest. At the same time, we provided that if after the expiry of one month the non-bailable warrant of arrest remains outstanding, the Director General of Police will en­sure arrest of respondent No. 8 for his production before the Court.

2. After the public interest litigation was, thus, disposed of, respondent No. 8 filed a review application con­tending that as on the date when the public interest litigation was disposed of, no non-bailable warrant of arrest was outstanding against the said respon­dent. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner did not dispute the said con­tention. In the circumstances, the order disposing of the public interest litigation was substantially reviewed and direction for surrender and simultaneously applying for bail was withdrawn.

3. In the present application filed under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, writ petitioner is con­tending that as on the date when the public interest litigation was decided, a non-bailable warrant, a proclamation and an attachment were outstanding against respondent No. 8. It has been contended that the same were also outstanding as on the date of filing of the review application and, accordingly, respondent No. 8 must be suitably dealt with. Respondent No, 8 is not disputing the fact that a non-bailable warrant followed by a proclamation and attachment were outstanding against the said respondent as on the date when the writ petition was disposed of as also at the time when the review application was allowed, but he is contending that having regard to the fact that on 9th De­cember, 2011 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed execution of the non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as the proclamation in appl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document