The issuance of non-bailable warrants must be based on careful consideration of individual liberty and reliable evidence of evasion, with the court required to record reasons before proceeding with such drastic actions.

JUDGMENT :

PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 passed by learned Additional District Judge - XVI/Special Judge (P.C.) Allahabad in Session Trial No. 354 of 2016 ( State vs. Faizan Hussain and Others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2014 under sections 323, 325/34, 504 and 506 of IPC, P.S. - Daraganj, District - Allahabad whereby Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) have been issued against the applicants on the very first date of listing.

3. Facts in Brief fact of the present case is that the particular incident took place on 01.01.2014 against which an FIR was lodged by the Opposite Party No.2 against the applicants which is registered as the Case Crime No. 2 of 2014. The applicants also registered a cross case which was registered as the Case crime No. 3 of 2014 of the aforesaid incident. Subsequently the case lodged at the instance of the applicants committed to the District Judge, Allahabad vide order dated 02.05.2016. Thereafter, District Judge, Allahabad transferred the Case Crime No. 3 of 2014 to the court of ADJ 16/ Special Judge (P.C.) Act, Allahabad. The Trial on the first date that the trial court upon receiving the file on being transferred vide order dated 13.01.2023 issued NBW against all the applicants.

4. Having considered the submission of the learned counsels of the parties and perused the material available on records, it appears that the Additional District Judge - XVI/Special Judge (P.C.), Allahabad has passed the impugned order 13.01.2026 in Session Trial No. 354 of 2016 without the application of judicial mind in a very hasty manner in complete disregard of the settled principles of the law. The impugned order passed against the applicants who are the witnesses of the facts, does not reflect the objective satisfaction recorded by the trial court for issuing the NBW at the very first instance after the transfer of the case from the Court of District Judge, Aligarh to the court of ADJ 16/ Special Judge (P.C.) Act without recoursing other modes of securing the presence of the witnesses. At this juncture, it is inevitable to discuss about the Section 90 of the BNSS. Section 90 of the BNSS is as under:

Section 90 - Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons - A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Sanhita to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest—

(a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons.

(b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure.

5. On bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it is clear that the general course of action for the appearance of any person before the court may be deviated only when the court has reason to believe that the he has absconded or will not obey the summons. The impugned order does not disclose the compliance of above noted requirement. The issuance of an NBW is a serious matter that impacts an individual's personal freedom as protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The authority to issue a warrant, whether it is bailable or not, must therefore be used carefully and not arbitrarily. Nonetheless, the courts have made it clear that their discretion