COMMON JUDGMENT

Dt.26.04.2022 (Per M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J)

1) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned single Judges in W.P.No.21531 of 2021 dated 27.10.2021 and W.P.No.25490 of 2021 dated 05.11.2021, the present writ appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, by the petitioners/accused in the writ petitions.

2) The appellants herein were the writ petitioners and the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petitions. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties will be referred as arrayed in the writ petitions.

3) W.P.No.21531 of 2021 and W.P.No.25490 of 2021 were filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of the respondent/police in issuing Non-Bailable Warrants in C.C.No.350 of 2014 on the file of the First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam, and C.C.No.263 of 2018 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioners, on the ground that, the Non-Bailable Warrants were issued under Section 70 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short „Cr.P.C‟) are old and dead/elapsed Warranst; instead of returning to the concerned Court, in violation of the directions issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra1 and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, prayed to direct the Respondents/Police to return the old/dead/elapsed Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) in the name of the

1 AIR 2011 SC 3393

petitioners in the above mentioned calendar cases without executing the same as against the petitioners.

4) It is contended that, in view of the law settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra (referred supra) where Guidelines Nos. (a) to (j) were issued, wherein, Guideline No.(j) says that the Court must ensure that warrant is directed to a particular police officer (or authority) and unless intended to be open- ended, it must be returnable whether executed or unexecuted, on or before the date specified therein. Therefore, the Warrants shall be returned if not executed or the concerned police officer or authority shall produce the accused on his arrest before the Court within the time specified in the Warrants. But, the learned single Judge in W.P.No.21531 of 2021 directed the petitioner therein to surrender before the Trial Court within a week i.e on or before 02.11.2021 and file a petition before the Trial Court under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C to recall or cancel the said N.B.W. Till 02.11.2021, the said N.B.W was kept under suspension. It was also directed that, if the petitioner fails to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 02.11.2021, the learned Advocate Commissioner, with the assistance of police, shall execute the said Warrant against the petitioner. W.P.No.21531 of 2021 dated 27.10.2021 was disposed of with identical direction to the petitioner and the directions are challenged in W.A.No.703 of 2021. In fact, no such copy was served on the petitioner till date, except by uploading in the website on 19.11.2021. The order again says that, if the petitioner fails to surrender before 02.11.2021, the learned Advocate Commissioner was directed to execute the warrant with the assistance of police. In fact, no such Advocate Commissioner was appointed to execute the Warrant.

5) The main endeavour of the petitioners/appellants before this Court is that, the Warrants are deemed to be dead or lapsed, if they are not executed within the time specified in the Warrants or by the next date of adjournment. The learned single Judges did not consider the case of these petitioners in proper perspective and committed a serious error in issuing such direction and requested to set-aside the same.

6) The contention of the petitioners was based on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra (referred supra) and on the strength