Venus Remedies Ltd and Ors Vs State of Karnataka on 30 Oct 2023

A single judge of Dharwad bench of Karnataka HC held as follows:

From Paras 10 and 11,

10. In the application filed by the petitioners seeking recall of NBW, they have undertaken to appear before the Court if sufficient time is granted to them in para 13 of their application. The application of the petitioners seeking recall of NBW came to be rejected on the ground that they are not physically kept present. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL case (supra) as held that the NBW may be cancelled or converted into a bailable warrant/summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.
11. The learned Magistrate erred in rejecting the application seeking recall of NBW only ground that they were not kept present either physically or in Video Conference and no affidavit is filed undertaking to appear on the next date on hearing. The application itself contains an undertaking of the accused persons that they will appear if sufficient time is given to them in para 13 of their application.

Index of NBW Judgments is here.

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 07 Oct 2021

Posted on February 7 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed these guidelines with respect to issue of Summons and Warrants and Recall of NBW,

After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance
a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.
b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.
c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.
d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.
e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 07 Oct 2021

Citations: [(2021) 10 SCC 773], [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16350770/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/62ba660db50db90d4b55ecaf

A corrected Reportable judgment is passed on 11 Jul 2022…

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 11 Jul 2022

Further time is given to comply with the directions earlier given on 03 Feb 2023…

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 03 Feb 2023

Supreme Court also directed as follows.

The judgment in the present case i.e. “Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI” reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and the judgment in Siddharth’s case (supra) should be incorporated as part of the curriculum of the State Judicial Academies and the National Judicial Academy.

Interim directions given on 21 Mar 2023 considering the States and High Courts did not provide the required information to Amicus

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 21 Mar 2023

Some individual cases were filed alleging non-compliance of this Order by some Magistrates… SC passed this order on 02 May 2023

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 02 May 2023

Final Judgment on 13 Feb 2024

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 13 Feb 2024

Supreme gave another ‘last’ change on 07 May 2024 to file affidavits that have not complied with the directions issued in this case.
Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 07 May 2024

Index of NBW Judgments is here.

R.Sundar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 12 Oct 2023

Posted on February 7 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madurai bench of Madras High Court held that, the court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused.

From Para 6,

6.On hearing both, it is clear that the revision petitioner is Accused No.1 in C.C.No.95 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Lalgudi. Already NBW is pending against Accused No.2 from the year 2013. NBW was also pending against Accused No.3, who filed the petition to recall NBW and the same was allowed on 12.09.2023. Admittedly the petitioner was directed to appear for hearing, but he filed the petition for dispense of his presence. On perusal of decision of this Court relied on by the petitioner, there is no wrong the presence of an accused for any effective hearing. On perusal of impugned order, there is nothing mentioned about any of effective hearing. Further, in the absence co-accused, no effective hearing can be made in the main case. This Court already held that while recalling NBW appearance of accused need not be insisted upon. At the same time, the accused has to be present when the case is posted for any effective hearing. In this case, when NBWs are pending against co-accused there would not be any effective hearing. However, it is stated that the petitioner has not been appearing before the Trial Court for several years, in such circumstance, there is nothing wrong in passing order for his appearance. In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow this Criminal Revision Case with conditions by setting aside the impugned order.

R.Sundar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 12 Oct 2023

Index of NBW judgments here.

Arige Venkataramaiah Vs State of Telangana on 20 Dec 2023

Posted on February 7 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held that, the court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused.

From Para 5,

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short), the Court can issue a warrant in writing and under sub-section (2) thereof, every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed. The petitioner claims to have filed the application for recall of the NBW and it is his case that the accused can be represented by his counsel and he need not be present physically during the proceedings when the application for recall of NBW is being considered. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of R.Sundar Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police (1 supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed that the presence of the accused need not be insisted upon during the proceedings for recall of NBW.

Arige Venkataramaiah Vs State of Telangana on 20 Dec 2023

Index of NBW judgments here.

S.Sundar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 02 Mar 2016

Posted on February 7 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court held that, the court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused.

From paras 7-9,

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this branch of law, there is march of law. Earlier, there used to be not entertaining such recall petitions when the accused was not present in the court. This conception of compulsion of the presence of accused has been departed because
of change in the judicial thinking. The fact that the accused, who is stated to have eluded has since engaged a counsel and wanted to participate in the criminal proceedings had effect on the courts.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without insisting upon the presence of the accused, the court can recall NBW. I hasten to add that the courts can impose certain conditions, but it should not be harsh or conditions should not be to terrorise the accused. In support of his said view, the learned counsel would cite the following decisions:
(i) VALAMPURI JOHN V. PETER JAMES [1997(2) MWN (CR.) 196
(ii) VALIULLAZ SHERIF V. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NELLORE [2000(3) MWN 28
(iii) SIRUGUDUGU NAGA VENKATA DURGAKUMARI V. SIRUGUDU JHANSILAKSHMI [(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1668]
(iv) INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS [(2007) 12 SCC 1]
9. Courts must protect the rights of the accused. But, atthe same time, the court has to see that the offenders are prosecuted. This legal philosophy could be seen as a currentjudicial thing [SANJAY CHANDRA VS.C.B.I [2012(1)SCC 40] also known as 2G scam case. While striking a balance between thesetwo extremes, cause of justice cannot be compromised. Now the fear of the petitioner is that as and when he shows his face, there is possibility of he being sent to jail. When he filesrecall petition, it is an indication that he will participate in the court proceedings. At the same time, there is fear ofpsychosis on the prosecution that the accused may put bottle necks in the administration of criminal justice. Now the law is very clear. Accused cannot be asked to present in court as acondition precedent to recall the NBW.

S.Sundar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 02 Mar 2016

Index of NBW judgments here.

Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023

Posted on January 31 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held as follow:

From Para 29-32, (Regarding issuing of arrest warrants without following procedure u/s 421 Cr.P.C.)

29. Now, coming to the next question regarding the failure of the Family Court in not following the procedure for levy of fines as contemplated under Section 421 of the Code.
30. Section 125 (3) extracted above, stipulates that in case of failure of a person to comply with an order to pay maintenance without sufficient cause, then for every breach, the Magistrate has to issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the same manner provided for levying fines.
32. It is well-settled in a whole line of precedents that the Courts shall not order a warrant of arrest against a defaulter, without following the procedure under Section 421 of the Code.

From Para 33,

33. Nonetheless, after the pronouncement of the celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), a revolutionary change has been brought in the procedure to be followed by the courts in dealing with the applications filed under Chapter IX of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive procedural and normative directions streamlining the maintenance laws, inter alia, directing that the parties in a maintenance application have to file affidavits of disclosure of their assets and liabilities, which must be considered by Courts while deciding the application. It is also held that, in case of a dispute on the declaration made in the affidavits of disclosure, the aggrieved person can seek leave of the Court to serve interrogatories on the opposite side and seek production of relevant documents as provided under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in case a false statement or misrepresentation is made, the Court can initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code or for contempt of court.
34. In the instant case, the Family Court, following the directions laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), directed both parties to file their affidavits of disclosure in the original proceedings. The revision petitioner filed his affidavit stating that he had no movable or immovable properties. Again, on the execution side, the Family Court directed the first respondent to file an affidavit regarding the assets of the revision petitioner, and she reiterated that the revision petitioner had no assets or properties. Based on the affirmation in the affidavits, that the revision petitioner had no movable or immovable properties, the Family Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the revision petitioner. I do not find any error or illegality in the procedure adopted by the Family Court in the post-Rajnesh era. Once a party declares on oath that he has no movable and immovable properties, it would be an empty formality to follow the procedure under Section 421 because, ultimately, the enquiry by the revenue authorities would yield the same result as disclosed by the parties on solemn affirmation. The exposition of the law in Rajnesh was to remove the stumbling blocks in the procedure and the inordinate delay being caused in the disposal of maintenance applications and the enforcement of the orders. It is trite, that procedural laws are handmaids of justice. Therefore, the dispensation of the procedure under Section 421 of the Code, in a case where the respondent disclosed that he has no movable or immovable property, is justifiable and sustainable in law. In the emerged scenario post Rajnesh, I do not find any meaningful purpose in the Courts ritualistically following the procedure under Section 421, especially after the respondent states on oath that he has no property, other than to prolong the miseries of the persons living in vagrancy.

Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023

Index of Maintenance cases here.

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 11 Jul 2022

Posted on July 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed the following guidelines with respect to Arrest and Bails

From Para 24,

24.Section 41A deals with the procedure for appearance before the police officer who is required to issue a notice to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, and arrest is not required under Section 41(1). Section 41B deals with the procedure of arrest along with mandatory duty on the part of the officer.
25.On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. We need not elaborate any further, in light of the judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273:
26.We only reiterate that the directions aforesaid ought to be complied with in letter and spirit by the investigating and prosecuting agencies, while the view expressed by us on the non-compliance of Section 41 and the consequences that flow from it has to be kept in mind by the Court, which is expected to be reflected in the orders.
27.Despite the dictum of this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra), no concrete step has been taken to comply with the mandate of Section 41A of the Code. This Court has clearly interpreted Section 41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) inter alia holding that notwithstanding the existence of a reason to believe qua a police officer, the satisfaction for the need to arrest shall also be present. Thus, sub-clause (1)(b)(i) of Section 41 has to be read along with sub-clause (ii) and therefore both the elements of ‘reason to believe’ and ‘satisfaction qua an arrest’ are mandated and accordingly are to be recorded by the police officer.
28.It is also brought to our notice that there are no specific guidelines with respect to the mandatory compliance of Section 41A of the Code. An endeavour was made by the Delhi High Court while deciding Writ Petition (C) No. 7608 of 2017 vide order dated 07.02.2018, followed by order dated 28.10.2021 in Contempt Case (C) No. 480 of 2020 & CM Application No.25054 of 2020, wherein not only the need for guidelines but also the effect of non-compliance towards taking action against the officers concerned was discussed. We also take note of the fact that a standing order has been passed by the Delhi Police viz., Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, which provides for a set of guidelines in the form of procedure for issuance of notices or orders by the police officers. Considering the aforesaid action taken, in due compliance with the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.7608 of 2017 dated 07.02.2018, this Court has also passed an order in Writ Petition (Crl.) 420 of 2021 dated 10.05.2021 directing the State of Bihar to look into the said aspect of an appropriate modification to give effect to the mandate of Section 41A. A recent judgment has also been rendered on the same lines by the High Court of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P. No. 1291 of 2021 dated 16.06.2022.
29.Thus, we deem it appropriate to direct all the State Governments and the Union Territories to facilitate standing orders while taking note of the standing order issued by the Delhi Police i.e., Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41A. We do feel that this would certainly take care of not only the unwarranted arrests, but also the clogging of bail applications before various Courts as they may not even be required for the offences up to seven years.
30.We also expect the courts to come down heavily on the officers effecting arrest without due compliance of Section 41 and Section 41A. We express our hope that the Investigating Agencies would keep in mind the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar (Supra), the discretion to be exercised on the touchstone of presumption of innocence, and the safeguards provided under Section 41, since an arrest is not mandatory. If discretion is exercised to effect such an arrest, there shall be procedural compliance. Our view is also reflected by the interpretation of the specific provision under Section 60A of the Code which warrants the officer concerned to make the arrest strictly in accordance with the Code.

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 11 Jul 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

There is another Order passed earlier in this very same case with respect to NBW recall here.

Index of Bail Judgments is here.

Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 17 Mar 2018

Posted on July 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A District Court in Delhi passed this details Judgment, relying on earlier Madras HC judgment here.

From Para 7,

At this juncture, reference may be made to Saleem P.A. etc. v. State reported as (1994) 2 LW (Crl.) 402, which is relevant for the present purpose. Paragraph 24 thereof is reproduced as under:
“ 24. In view of the discussion as above, the following positions emerge:
1. Issuance of a warrant of arrest by a Court under the Code shall remain in force beyond the date fixed for its return, until it is cancelled or executed.
2. Since the court, which issued the warrant has the power to cancel it, it is but necessary for the person against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued to approach the said Court, by his personal appearance, for its cancellation, which issued it.
3. Once a person accused of an offence against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued makes his personal appearance, with a petition for its cancellation, before the Court, which issued it, it behaves on its part not to take him into custody and send him to prison immediately after his appearance, but to pass an order on such petition, forthwith, without brooking any sort of a delay and if the order so passed ends in his favour, he
shall be bound over to appear before court on an earliest date fixed for hearing on trial, as the case may be, or otherwise, he could be taken into custody forthwith and sent to prison, with a direction to the prison authorities for his production before court on the earliest date fixed for such hearing or trial is over, so as to enable it to proceed, with ease and grace, and without any obstruction whatever, thereby not affecting in the least his right to speedy trial, a goal to be achieved, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, or on his application, being presented, release him on bail, on his executing a bond for a specified sum, with sufficient number of sureties, for such sum to secure his appearance on the dates fixed for hearing or trial, as the case may be.
4. However, a person aggrieved by an order of refusal of the cancellation by a Magistrate, who issued the same, can further agitate the same, if he so desires, by filing a revision, either under Section 397 or 401 of the Code, and then resort to invoke the inherent power of this court under Section 482 of the Code, if grounds for resortment to such a course existed (emphasis supplied).”
In the light of above discussion, it is clear that the present revision petition is maintainable.

Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 17 Mar 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108983018/

NBW judgments here.

P.A.Saleem Vs State of Madras on 13 Jul 1994

Posted on July 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Madras High Court held that, Dismissal of NBW Cancellation is not Interlocutory so Revision is Maintainable u/s 397 CrPC.

(24) In view of the discussions as above, the following positions emerge:
(1) issuance of a warrant of arrest by a court under this code shall remain in force beyond the date fixed for its return, until it is cancelled or executed.
(2) since the court, which issued the warrant has the power to cancel it, it is but necessary for the person against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued to approach the said court, by his personal appearance, for its cancellation, which issued it.
(3) once a person of an offence against whom a warrant of arrest had been makes his personal appearance, with a petition for its cancellation, before the court, which issued it, it behoves on its part not to take him into custody and send him to prison immediately after his appearance; but to pass an order on such petition, forthwith, without borrowing any sort of a delay and if the order so passed ends in his favour, he shall be bound over to appear before court on an earliest date fixed for hearing or trial, as the case may as, or otherwise, he could be taken into custody forthwith and sent to prison, with a direction to the prison authorities for his production before court on the earliest date fixed for such hearing or trial and on such other dates till the trial is over, so as to enable it to proceed, with ease and grace, and without any obstruction whatever, thereby not affecting in the least his right to speedy trial, a goal to be achieved, as enshrined under article 21 of the constitution; or on his application, being presented, release him on bail, or his executing a bond for a specified sum, with sufficient number of sureties, for such sum to secure his appearance on the dates fixed for hearing or trial, as the case may be.
(4) however, a person, aggrieved by an order of refusal of the cancellation by a magistrate, who issued the same, can further agitate the same, if he so desires, by filing a revision, either under section 397 or 401 of the code, and then resort to invoke the inherent power of this court under section 482 of the code, if grounds for resortment to such a course existed; and
(5) section 482 of the code is not at all attracted for simpliciter tre – call of a warrant; but, on the other hand, it is getting attracted for execution of a warrant, by issuance of a direction to a police officer or for that matter, any other person to whom it is issued, for its immediate compliance.

P.A.Saleem Vs State of Madras on 13 Jul 1994

Citations : [1994 CRIMES 3 991]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e669e9607dba6b53435671

NBW judgments here.

Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 9 September 2011

Posted on April 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Even though Supreme Court upheld High Court decision in holding the Police officer who executed the cancelled Non-bailable warrant against the practicing advocate, it held that Police officer was sufficiently reprimanded. High Court had also granted a compensation of Rs.2000/- from the personal account of Police officer to the Advocate!!!

Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 9 September 2011

Citations: [2012 SCC 9 791], [2011 AIOL 663], [2012 AIR BOMR 1 197], [2011 AIR SC 3393], [2011 AIR SC 5347], [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 65], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 1 260], [2011 JT 10 253], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 212], [2011 SCALE 10 233], [2011 SLT 7 1], [2012 SCC CRI 4 679]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934058/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd363607dba63d7e6e2d9

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Issue of Non-Bailable Warrant

Venus Remedies Ltd and Ors Vs State of Karnataka on 30 Oct 2023

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 07 Oct 2021

R.Sundar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 12 Oct 2023

Arige Venkataramaiah Vs State of Telangana on 20 Dec 2023

S.Sundar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 02 Mar 2016

Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023

Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and Anr on 11 Jul 2022

Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 17 Mar 2018

P.A.Saleem Vs State of Madras on 13 Jul 1994

Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 9 September 2011