High Court of Jharkhand Quashes Non-Bailable Warrants in Vigilance Case, Says Courts Must Record Satisfaction Before Curtailing Personal Liberty
Cr.M.P. No. 4155 of 2019
By Navya Tiwari
In an important ruling on procedural safeguards and personal liberty, the High Court of Jharkhand set aside non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings issued against members of a Ranchi-based family in a vigilance investigation, holding that courts cannot mechanically authorize arrests without recording satisfaction that the accused are deliberately evading arrest.
The petition was filed by Sheela Kumari, Puja Sinha, and Rahul Kumar Sinha challenging orders passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in a vigilance case registered by the State Vigilance Bureau.
The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the trial court’s order issuing warrants of arrest against them. During the pendency of the matter, proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were also initiated, prompting the petitioners to seek amendment of their plea.
Before the Court, counsel for the petitioners argued that the mandatory legal requirement for issuing a non-bailable warrant under Section 73 Cr.P.C. had not been fulfilled. It was contended that warrants can be issued only when the accused is an escaped convict, a proclaimed offender, or a person accused of a non-bailable offence who is actively evading arrest. According to the petitioners, there was no material before the lower court to conclude that they were evading arrest.
Reliance was placed on several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in State through C.B.I. v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, where the Court emphasized that arrest warrants cannot be issued merely to aid police investigation and that judicial discretion must be exercised carefully before curtailing liberty.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary accepted the contention of the petitioners and observed that neither the requisition submitted by the investigating officer nor the impugned orders recorded any satisfaction that the accused persons were absconding or avoiding arrest.
The Court stressed that issuance of a non-bailable warrant directly interferes with an individual’s personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to the Supreme Court’s observations in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, the High Court reiterated that courts must act with extreme caution before authorizing coercive measures.
Holding that the Special Judge had failed to apply judicial mind and had issued the warrants mechanically, the High Court quashed both the order issuing non-bailable warrants and the subsequent proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the interim protection earlier granted to the petitioners from coercive action stood vacated upon disposal of the petition, while granting liberty to the Anti-Corruption Bureau to continue the investigation in accordance with law.
