Facts
The petitioner challenged orders passed in Complaint Case No. 436 of 2023. He confined his prayer to quashing the order dated 08.04.2024, by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga directed issuance of a non-bailable warrant (NBW), and did not press his challenge to the order dated 13.10.2023.
Source reference: p. 2, paras 2–3The petitioner contended that the execution report for the bailable warrant issued on 01.02.2024 had not been received when the NBW was ordered.
Source reference: p. 2, para 4He undertook to appear before the trial court by 30.10.2026 and seek regular bail.
Source reference: p. 2, para 4Issues
Whether the order directing issuance of an NBW was sustainable when the execution report for the previously issued bailable warrant had not been received?
Source reference: p. 2, para 4; p. 3, para 6Whether the petitioner’s undertaking to appear by 30.10.2026 warranted a direction concerning consideration of his regular-bail application?
Source reference: p. 4, para 10Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: p. 2, para 2The Court held that, after issuing a bailable warrant, the Magistrate was required to ensure that its execution report was received; in its absence, the subsequent order issuing an NBW was not sustainable on the facts of this case.
Source reference: p. 3, para 6No precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court found that the bailable warrant had been issued on 01.02.2024, but its execution report had not been received before the Magistrate ordered an NBW on 08.04.2024.
Source reference: p. 3, para 6It therefore held that the NBW order could not stand and quashed it as against the petitioner, while leaving the Magistrate free to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 3, paras 6–8Holding
The Court allowed the petition to the limited extent of quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.04.2024 qua the petitioner only; the challenge to the order dated 13.10.2023 was rejected as not pressed.
The Magistrate may pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 3, para 8If the petitioner appears by 30.10.2026 and seeks regular bail, the court must consider the application in accordance with law, without prejudice from the High Court’s order.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, para 10Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Original Court PDF
PRAMOD KUMAR SWAINvsTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
