Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Subhendu Samanta, J
Moola Chandra Kala – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3480/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravuri Leela Sai Sampath
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor
While Non-Bailable Warrants should generally only be issued after exhausting summons and bailable warrants, the court may exercise discretion in long-pending cases at the final stage, though such warrants can be recalled upon the accused's commitment to appear.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant - Due Process - Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) without following the sequential procedure of issuing summons and bailable warrants is generally deprecated, particularly in cases not involving heinous crimes. (Para 2, 4)
(B) Judicial Discretion - Long-pending Cases - In instances where a case has been pending for a significant duration (e.g., ten years) and has reached the final argument stage, the court may issue an NBW if the accused fails to provide instructions to their counsel, although such a step remains undesirable. (Para 4, 5)
Issues: Whether the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant without following the standard procedural sequence was justified given the age of the case and the stage of proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the issuance of a non-bailable warrant without following the sequential legal process of summons and bailable warrants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observation that while nbws are generally deprecated without due process, extreme delays in trial may influence judicial action. (Para 4) |
| 3. recalling of the non-bailable warrant on the condition of the accused's mandatory appearance for arguments. (Para 5 , 6) |
Petition under Section 437 /438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to declare the Impugned Docket Order dt. 16-01-2025 in C.C.No. 147/2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kotthavalasa, Vizianagaram District by issuance of an N.B.W., as against the Petitioner/Accused it is bad in law Contrary to the Apex Court Rulings there by to Quash the docket order dated dt. 16-01-2025 in C.C.No. 147/2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kotthavalasa, Vizianagaram District by Allowing the Criminal Petition and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of docket order in C.C.No.147/2016, dated 16-01-2025 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kotthavalasa, before this Hon’ble Court and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2026
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of the Operation of the docket order dt.16-01-2025 in C.C.No.147/2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kotthavalasa, Vizianagaram District pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition in the interest of the justice, and pas
The Court made the following Order:
The instant criminal revision case is filed challenging impugned order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the accused/petitioner in a case registered under Section 138 of NI Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court without following the due process of law directly issued Non-Bailable Warrant. Learned Court below, in pursuance to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others
reported in
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 251,
can only issue Non-Bailable Warrant in respect of heinous crimes, more so, after exhausting procedure of issuing summons, Bailable Warrant and thereafter Non-Bailable Warrant may be issued. He also submits that instant case was registered under Section 138 of NI Act, the present petitioner was arrayed as an accused in this case, hence, Non-Bailable Warrant issued against the present petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the accused/petitioner was absent when the date was fixed for arguments. Learned counsel on record for accused submitted that he has no instructions, reasons thereby, the learned Court below has issued Non-Bailable Warrant.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant by a Criminal Court without following proper procedure is always deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with several reasons. However, in the present case, it appears that the case is at the end stage and date was fixed for arguments on behalf of the accused. The case was pending since 2016, ten years have already been elapsed, at this juncture, the Court below has, after recording no instructions of Advocate from the accused, issued Non-Bailable Warrant.
5. In my view, issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant by the Court below though not desirable, but attending facts and ci
