The High Court held that issuing non-bailable warrants against accused persons who are represented by counsel and delayed by verified extreme weather conditions is unreasonable, justifying the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to set aside such orders.

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.256 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, OTTAPALAM

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 20th day of August, 2026

The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C. No.256/2024 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Ottapalam (Trial Court), which has originated from Crime No.283/2023 registered by the Pattambi Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 22(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

It is the petitioners’ case that they were scrupulously appearing before the Trial Court on all posting dates. The case was posted on 04.08.2026 for hearing the petitioners on framing of charge in the above case. However, as there was torrential rain in the District, as can be gathered from Annexure-IV orange alert notice, the petitioners got held up in a traffic block on the way. Though their counsel represented the matter and sought for a pass over, the Trial Court, by Annexure- II proceedings, refused to accept the plea and ordered non-bailable warrants against the petitioners and notice to their sureties. Annexure-II proceedings is unreasonable and unjustifiable, especially since the petitioners were represented by their counsel. The petitioners are ready and willing to appear before the Trial Court on all posting dates. Nonetheless, the petitioners are apprehensive that the Trial Court may remand them to judicial custody.

Hence, the petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Annexure-III, case history timeline substantiates that the petitioners were present before the Trial Court on all posting dates, if not, they were represented by their counsel. Annexure-IV orange alert notice published by the Information Public Relations Department substantiates that there was an orange alert in Palakkad District on 04.08.2026.

The petitioners contend that, they were represented by their counsel when the case was called on 04.08.2026, who prayed that the case may be passed over because the petitioners were held up in a traffic block due to the torrential rain. However, the Trial Court has passed Annexure-II proceedings, issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioners and notice to the sureties. This, according to me, is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Thus, I find that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the Crl.M.C. is allowed by setting aside Annexure-II proceedings, and permitting the petitioners to appear before the Trial Court on 23.09.2026 on the same bail bond and the same sureties. If the petitioners appear on the said date, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case, in accordance with law.