Non-bailable warrant upheld where the Magistrate records satisfaction that the accused is concealing himself.

The petitioner, Md. Asif, was an accused in Doranda P.S. Case No. 251 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. No. 3433 of 2022, involving offences under Sections 333/34 and 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

On 15 September 2022, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi, relying on the investigating officer’s report that the petitioner was unavailable for investigation, had not responded to a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and was allegedly concealing himself, directed issuance of a non-bailable warrant of arrest against him.

The petitioner challenged that order through Criminal Revision No. 153 of 2026.

The Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, dismissed the revision on 15 May 2026 for non-prosecution and for being delayed by 1,230 days.

The petitioner thereafter invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of both orders.

1. Whether the Judicial Commissioner rightly dismissed the petitioner’s criminal revision for non-prosecution and for delay of 1,230 days

2. Whether the Magistrate’s order dated 15 September 2022 directing issuance of a non-bailable warrant of arrest was legally sustainable

3. Whether the petitioner could challenge the warrant order while simultaneously asserting that the warrant had been issued against a different person due to mistaken identity

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which permits interference to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

The offences alleged were under Sections 333/34 and 353/34 IPC, both treated by the Court as non-bailable offences.

The Court considered the principle stated by the Supreme Court in State Through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 438, that a warrant under Section 73 CrPC is issued for securing an accused’s appearance before the Court and cannot be issued solely for producing the accused before the police in aid of investigation.

It also applied the principles governing dismissal of a delayed revision for non-prosecution and the requirement that a person challenging an order must be an aggrieved person with locus standi.

The High Court found no illegality in the revisional order because the revision was filed after an unexplained or insufficiently justified delay of 1,230 days, and neither the petitioner nor his advocate appeared before the revisional court on 15 May 2026.

Consequently, dismissal for non-prosecution and limitation did not warrant interference under Section 528 BNSS.

Regarding the warrant order, the Magistrate had recorded satisfaction, based on the case diary, that the accused was not making himself available, had failed to respond to the Section 41A notice, and was concealing himself despite knowledge of the case.

The High Court held that this recorded satisfaction, coupled with the allegation of non-bailable offences, justified issuance of the non-bailable warrant.

The petitioner’s alternative submission that the warrant was issued against “Md. Ashif” and not “Md. Asif” also failed: if the mistaken-identity assertion were correct, he would not be an aggrieved person and therefore would lack locus standi to challenge the order.

It upheld the Judicial Commissioner’s dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 153 of 2026 for non-prosecution and delay, and also upheld the Magistrate’s order dated 15 September 2022 directing issuance of a non-bailable warrant of arrest.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed as meritless.