Issuing Non-Bailable Warrants Simply Because Accused is 'Absconding' Without Independent Judicial Assessment is Improper: Telangana High Court - 2025-07-10

Legal Information & Analysis.

Telangana High Court Sets Aside NBW, Reinforces SC Guidelines on Arrest and Summons

Hyderabad, Telangana – The Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling, has reinforced the procedural safeguards against the casual issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs). Justice N. Tukaramji, while allowing a criminal petition, held that a trial court cannot issue an NBW solely on the police's assertion that an accused is "absconding" without conducting an independent judicial assessment of the necessity for such a coercive measure.

The court set aside an NBW issued against J. Chandra Lekha and G. Jayaraj, emphasizing that for offences punishable with less than seven years imprisonment, courts must adhere to the sequential procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark Satender Kumar Antil judgment.

Case Background

The case, J. Chandra Lekha and G. Jayaraj vs State of Telangana , arose after the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Hyderabad issued NBWs against the petitioners, who are accused in a case involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The trial court's decision was based on the charge sheet which noted that the accused had been absconding.

An application filed by the petitioners to recall the warrants was dismissed because they were not physically present in court. This decision was upheld by the Sessions Judge, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court for relief.

Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, argued that the trial court had acted in error by bypassing established legal procedure. Key arguments included: - The police had not served any notice upon the petitioners during the investigation, unlike other co-accused in the same case. - The alleged offences are all punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, mandating adherence to the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar . - Citing Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation , the counsel contended that the court should have first issued a summons, followed by a bailable warrant if there was non-compliance, and only then resorted to an NBW as a last measure.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, defended the trial court's order, stating that the petitioners' conduct of absconding justified the issuance of the NBW. However, he fairly conceded that the Supreme Court's guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil recommend issuing a bailable warrant before an NBW.

Court's Reasoning and Reliance on Precedent

Justice N. Tukaramji found merit in the petitioners' arguments, observing that the trial court failed to follow the prescribed legal sequence. The High Court underscored that a Magistrate must apply their own mind before issuing coercive orders.

"...the mere fact that the investigating agency has shown the accused as absconding cannot, by itself, justify the Magistrate’s order issuing NBWs. It is pertinent to clarify that before resorting to coercive measures, the learned Magistrate is duty-bound to carefully examine the materials... An independent judicial assessment must be undertaken..."

The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil , which categorize offences and prescribe a clear procedural hierarchy: 1. Issue an ordinary summons first. 2. If the accused fails to appear despite service, issue a bailable warrant. 3. An NBW should only be issued upon failure to appear despite the bailable warrant.

The judgment noted that since the petitioners were not arrested during the investigation and there was no material to show their custody was essential, the trial court was bound to follow this step-by-step process.

Final Decision and Directions

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order issuing the NBW. It directed the petitioners to appear in person before the trial court on or before the next hearing date and file an appropriate petition. The Magistrate was then directed to recall the warrants and proceed with the case in accordance with the law.

While granting relief, the Court also issued a word of caution against the routine practice of filing applications to recall NBWs in absentia, stating that the physical presence of the accused is the general rule. An exception can be made only in "unavoidable and compelling circumstances" where the court is satisfied with the genuineness of the reasons for non-appearance.