The court must issue summons before NBWs and conduct an independent assessment of necessity; coercive measures require adherence to procedural safeguards.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS ’) to set aside the order dated 10.07.2025 in Criminal Revision Petition No.81 of 2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and recall the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) dated 30.12.2024 issued by the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.15408 of 2024.

2. I have heard Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.15408 of 2024 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 329(4), 232, 351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS, 2023’).

4. At the stage of issuing summons, the trial court, noting that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 had been absconding since the commencement of proceedings, directed the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against them. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Section 72 (2) of the BNSS seeking recall of the NBWs. The court below, however, observed that although the petitioners had been ordered to be present, they had remained absent. On that basis, the court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition challenging the same.

-

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even according to the prosecution, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are residents of the same premises. However, the investigating agency chose to serve notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS only on Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and no such notice was ever served upon the petitioners at any stage of the proceedings. It is contended that the trial court, without considering this crucial aspect, proceeded to issue Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against the petitioners.

Counsel further argues that all the alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, and therefore, the trial court ought to have followed the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another (2014) 8 SCC 273 . It is further submitted that the revisional court failed to consider the settled legal position that the petitioners were entitled to receive notice and to be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before coercive steps were taken.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2021) 10 SCC 773 , wherein the Court categorized offences and prescribed the procedure to be followed by trial courts. According to these guidelines, in the given facts, the court ought first to have issued summons; if those were not complied with, then a bailable warrant; and only if the accused thereafter evaded the process could a non-bailable warrant be issued. Thus, the issuance of NBWs in the present case is, it is argued, ex facie unsustainable. It is also submitted that this Court, in other criminal petitions, has clarified that the personal presence of the accused is not mandatory for seeking recall of NBWs. On these grounds, interference by this Court is sought.

6. In response, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, as per the record, the petitioners absconded during the course of investigation and continued to avoid the judicial process even after the filing of the charge sheet. In view of their conduct, the trial court was justified in issuing NBWs. It is argued that the petitioners filed the present application without their physical presence, despite the trial court’s specific direction requiring their persona