A jail superintendent must comply with an outstanding production warrant despite bail in another case.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the release of her brother, who remained in Dum Dum Central Correctional Home after being granted bail by the Sessions Judge, North 24 Parganas, on 27 August 2026.

He was also accused in two Uttar Pradesh cases, in which production warrants had been issued on 13 and 14 August 2026.

A further production warrant was issued on 10 September 2026, and the State stated that he was sent to Goutam Buddha Nagar on 28 September 2026 for production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The petitioner alleged unlawful detention and sought compensation; she also challenged the accuracy of an earlier communication from the Baguiati Police Station concerning his transfer to Uttar Pradesh.

Whether the petitioner’s brother’s continued detention after the grant of bail amounted to unlawful detention, given the production warrants issued in the Uttar Pradesh cases.

Whether the Superintendent of Dum Dum Central Correctional Home was required to act on the production warrants and could release the accused notwithstanding them.

Section 302(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers a Criminal Court, in an inquiry, trial, or other proceeding, to require the officer in charge of a prison to produce a person confined or detained there before the Court.

The Court held that this provision places an obligation on the prison Superintendent to take steps to comply with a production warrant issued by a competent Court.

Relying on the observations in paragraph 15 of the Division Bench’s order dated 16 December 2024 in CRM(A) 4166 of 2024, the Court further considered that the jurisdictional Court—not the prison Superintendent—may recall the production warrant or direct the accused’s attendance on a later date.

The Court found that the brother was subject to production warrants in two Uttar Pradesh prosecutions and that a subsequent warrant dated 10 September 2026 had led to steps for his production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

In those circumstances, the Superintendent was obliged to act on the warrant and could not disregard it merely because bail had been granted in the North 24 Parganas case.

Any decision to recall the warrant or alter the requirement of attendance was for the jurisdictional Court, not the Superintendent.

The Court separately noted that the Baguiati Police Station communication of 19 September 2026 had failed to disclose the correct facts concerning the earlier warrants.

The writ petition was dismissed.

The Inspector-in-Charge, Baguiati Police Station, was cautioned to exercise greater care in future communications.