Calcutta High Court upholds arrest warrant against accused who left India before FIR; probe cites ₹28 crore cash and 15 kg gold recovery

The petitioner was an accused in Mohammad Bazar Police Station Case No. 267/2026, registered on 30 July 2026, corresponding to GR Case No. 1373/2026.

On the same date, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against him.

The petitioner challenged the warrant on the ground that there had been no reasonable opportunity to conclude that he was evading arrest under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

On 10 August 2026, the Magistrate issued a proclamation under Section 84(1) BNSS, requiring the petitioner to appear on 14 September 2026.

The State submitted that, after registration of the case, the investigating agency discovered through the NATGRID portal that the petitioner had left India on 23 May 2026; the warrant could not be executed, and a non-execution report was thereafter filed.

The High Court also considered a sealed-cover report dated 22 September 2026, which recorded substantial recoveries allegedly connected with organised crime.

1. Whether the Magistrate was justified in issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner on the date of registration of the FIR, notwithstanding the requirement under Section 75(1) BNSS that the accused be evading arrest.

2. Whether the proclamation issued under Section 84(1) BNSS was valid in the absence of a longer intervening period between registration of the case, issuance of the warrant, and the proclamation.

3. Whether the principles stated in State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, (2000) 10 SCC 438, invalidated the warrant issued in the present case.

The Court applied Section 75(1) BNSS, under which the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class may issue a warrant for the arrest of a person accused of a non-bailable offence who is evading arrest.

It also applied Section 84(1) BNSS, which permits issuance of a written proclamation where the Court has reason to believe that a person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed, subject to the prescribed minimum period for appearance.

The Court considered State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, (2000) 10 SCC 438, particularly the principle that a person arrested under a warrant issued during investigation is to be produced before the Magistrate, who must then consider the question of custody under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court also referred to the investigative procedure under Section 175 BNSS, but held that the need for such intervening steps was materially affected by the fact that the petitioner had already left India before the FIR was registered.

The Court accepted that Section 75 BNSS ordinarily requires a factual basis for concluding that an accused is evading arrest, and that such a conclusion cannot generally be reached mechanically or prematurely.

However, the petitioner’s admitted or undisputed departure from India on 23 May 2026—before registration of the FIR on 30 July 2026—demonstrated that he was not available within the country when the investigation commenced.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the objection based merely on the same-day issuance of the warrant lost force, since the petitioner’s absence from India made ordinary efforts to secure his arrest ineffective.

After the warrant remained unexecuted and the petitioner failed to appear on 7 August 2026, the authorities were entitled to invoke Section 84 BNSS and issue a proclamation.

The Court distinguished Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar because that decision principally concerned whether a warrant issued during investigation could be used to secure an accused’s production before the police; the present case concerned a petitioner who had already left the country and whose arrest could not be effected.

The alleged recovery of substantial cash, gold, and documentary and electronic material further persuaded the Court not to exercise revisional interference.

It further upheld the proclamation dated 10 August 2026 under Section 84 BNSS following the non-execution of the warrant and the petitioner’s failure to appear.

The criminal revision was dismissed, and CRAN 1 of 2026, seeking early hearing of the revision, was disposed of.