Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Ramu @Kothandaraman – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1172 of 2025 | Crl.M.P.No.14315 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Manokaran for Mr.Prakash Adiapadam
For the Respondent:Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Proper procedure must be followed by the court in issuing non-bailable warrants, respecting the accused's personal liberty and ensuring summons are issued first.
Headnote:(A) BNSS Act, 2023 - Sections 438 and 442 - Non-bailable warrant issuance - Learned Magistrate dismissed the petition to recall non-bailable warrant without issuing summons - Referring to Inder Mohan Gowswami vs. Utranchal, court reiterated that issuance of warrants must be judicious and consider personal liberty. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant - The court must ensure summons are served before issuing non-bailable warrants, unless the accused is likely to evade law. Personal liberty should be balanced against societal interest. (Paras 54-57)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused in a serious criminal case, and the trial court had directly issued non-bailable warrants against them without issuing summons, leading to the current revision.
Findings of Court:
The prior order was set aside due to lack of proper procedure in issuing the non-bailable warrant, indicating the Magistrate's mechanical dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The issue evaluated was whether the trial court justifiably issued non-bailable warrants without proper summons, compromising procedural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that personal liberty is paramount and warrants should not be issued arbitrarily without appropriate cumulation of procedural requisites.
Result: Revision allowed; the prior order set aside, and the petitioners are directed to appear before the Magistrate with specific instructions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural errors in issuing non-bailable warrants without summons. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments concerning the conditions under which non-bailable warrants should be issued. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. the court's directive to reconsider the issuance of warrants in light of personal liberty. (Para 6) |
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision has been preferred as against the order passed in P.R.C. No.19 of 2024 dated 19.06.2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, thereby dismissing the petition filed under Section 72(2) of BNSS Act to recall the non-bailable warrant.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.
3. The petitioners are arrayed as A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.419 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of IPC and Section 3(b) of Exclusive Substances Act, 1908. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report showing the petitioners as absconding accused and altered case into Sections 147,148, 341, 302, 149, 120B IPC r/w Section 3, 4(a), 4(b) & 6 of Exploive Substances Act on 23.10.2018. Totally there are 14 accused involved in this case and on receipt of the final report, the same has been taken on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Vanur in P.R.C.No.31 of 2019. Since the petitioners and A.7 were absent, the case has been split up into P.R.C.No. 35 of 2023, subsequently A.7 appeared and recalled Non-bailable warrant. Further, the case against the petitioners were split up and taken on file in PRC No.19 of 2024 and subsequently, case in PRC No.31 of 2019 and 35 of 2023 were clubbed together and committed to Sessions Court and the same has been taken on file in S.C.No.345 of 2023. Now the case is pending for committal as against the petitioners in PRC No.19 of 2024. On perusal of the records it reveals that while the case is pending in PRC No.35 of 2023, the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant as against A.1, A.2 and A.7, though they were absconding and absconding charge sheet has been filed as against the said accused persons, they were not issued summons and straight away, the trial court has issued non- bailable warrant as against petitioners / A.1 and A.2. As against the same, the petitioners have come up with present revision.
4. The case of the petitioners are that they have been impleaded as accused only on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused and they did no have any knowledge about the case. Though they had been in India 20 days prior to the date of alleged occurrence, subsequently, they had left India to reach the United States of America and if any summons have been issued, they would have definitely appeared before the trial court and they have absolutely no intention to abscond from any procedings against them. After it came to the knowledge about the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioners filed petition in Crl.O.P.No.10850 of 2025 to quash the final report no.1200 of
2018. Though this Court initially granted interim stay by order dated 08.04.2025, subsequently, it was brought to the notice of this Court that already non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioners and it is pending. Therefore, after knowing the pendency of the non-bailable warrant against them, the petitioners had withdrawn the quash petition with liberty to file a petition to recall the warrant pending against them. Therefore, the petitioners filed a petition to recall the Non-bailable warrant against them before the learned magistrate. The learned Magistrate, without even numbering the petition mechanically dismissed the said petition indicating that 'considering the age of the case which is pending since 2018, the gravity of the offence and their likelihood of absconding would stall the judicial proceedings'. As against the same, the petitioners have come up with the present petition.
5. It is pertinent to point out that already the respondent filed absconding charge sheet as a
