Non-Bailable Warrant Procedures

Source: Telangana High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court in the case of J. Chandra Lekha and G. Jayaraj v. State of Telangana and Another. (2025) set aside Sessions Court orders and provided crucial guidance on the proper procedure for issuing Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs), emphasizing strict adherence to Supreme Court guidelines established in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2021). 

What was the Background of J. Chandra Lekha and G. Jayaraj v/s State of Telangana and Anr. (2025) Cases?

• The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to set aside the Sessions Judge's order dated 10.07.2025 and recall NBWs issued against the petitioners. 
• The petitioners were accused in C.C.No.15408 of 2024 for offences under Sections 329(4), 232, 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 
• The trial court noted that Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (the petitioners) had been absconding since the commencement of proceedings and directly issued Non-Bailable Warrants against them. 
• The petitioners challenged the non-bailable warrants issued against them at the summons stage, arguing that NBWs could not be issued without first issuing summons and following the prescribed sequential procedure. 

Common Issues in Both Cases: 

• The investigating agency had served notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS selectively, without proper service on all accused persons. 
• No notice was served upon the petitioners at any stage of the proceedings in both cases. 
• The trial courts issued NBWs without following the mandatory sequential procedure established by Supreme Court guidelines. 
• The prosecution argued that the accused had been absconding since the filing of charge sheets, justifying the direct issuance of NBWs. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Procedural Violations: 

• The Court found that the trial court failed to follow the prescribed sequential procedure before issuing NBWs, noting the absence of any material demonstrating that securing the petitioners' presence or custody was essential for investigation purposes. 

Supreme Court Guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022):  

• The Court extensively referenced the Supreme Court's guidelines in this case which categorized offences and prescribed specific procedures: 
• Category A Offences (Punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less): 
  • First instance: Ordinary summons (including permitting appearance through lawyer). 
  • Second step: Bailable warrant for physical appearance if accused doesn't appear despite service of summons. 
  • Final step: NBW only on failure to appear despite issuance of bailable warrant 
• Category B Offences (Punishable with death, life imprisonment, or more than 7 years): On appearance, bail application to be decided on merits. 
• Category C Offences (Under Special Acts like NDPS, PMLA, UAPA): Same as Category B with additional compliance requirements. 
• Category D Offences (Economic offences not covered by Special Acts): Similar to Category B. 

Judicial Assessment Requirements: 

The Court emphasized that before issuing coercive measures, the Magistrate must: 

• Carefully examine materials produced by the investigating agency. 
• Consider the nature of process issued, allegations made, and evidence collected. 
• Undertake independent judicial assessment to determine necessity of accused's presence or custody. 
• Record reasons for such opinion. 

Court's Directions: 

• Immediate Relief: The impugned order was set aside for non-adherence to prescribed procedure. 
• Petitioners' Obligations: Directed to appear in person before the trial court on or before the next adjournment date and file appropriate petition. 
• Trial Court Directions: The Magistrate was directed to recall the NBWs and proceed with the case strictly in accordance with law. 
• Procedural Emphasis: Reiterated that NBWs should be issued as a measure of last resort solely for securing the presence of the accused. 

What is a Non-Bailable Warrant? 

• A non-bailable warrant is a judicial directive that authorizes law enforcement agencies to arrest a person and produce them before the court, without providing the option of immediate bail upon arrest. 
• When a non-bailable warrant is issued, the arrested individual cannot be released on bail by the police officer executing the warrant; instead, bail can only be granted by a competent court after consideration of the specific circumstances of the case. 
• The issuance of non-bailable warrants is typically reserved for serious offenses, cases where the accused has repeatedly failed to appear before the court despite opportunities, or situations where the court has reasonable grounds to believe the accused may abscond or tamper with evidence. 
• Section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs the form of warrants of arrest, while Sections 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, and 80 provide the procedural framework for the execution of such warrants. 
• As established in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980), non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely or mechanically, but only after proper judicial consideration of the circumstances necessitating such a serious restriction on liberty. 
• The execution of non-bailable warrants must follow specific procedural safeguards, including informing the arrested person of the contents of the warrant and producing them before the court without delay, generally within 24 hours of arrest.