Orders for Non-Bailable Warrant and Proclamation Quashed for Failure to Record Satisfaction of Evading Arrest

The petitioner was accused in Tundi P.S. Case No. 65 of 2023 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code

On 12.10.2023, the Investigating Officer requested a non-bailable warrant (NBW), which the Judicial Magistrate granted without recording satisfaction that the petitioner was evading arrest

Subsequently, on 10.02.2025, the Magistrate issued a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. without specifying a time or place for the petitioner’s appearance

The petitioner moved the High Court to quash these orders, while abandoning the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding

1. Whether the order dated 12.10.2023 issuing a non-bailable warrant of arrest was legally sustainable in the absence of recorded satisfaction that the accused was evading arrest.

2. Whether the order dated 10.02.2025 issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was valid without mentioning the specific time and place for appearance.

The Court applied Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which dictates that a Magistrate can only issue a warrant against an accused of a non-bailable offence if they are "evading arrest"

It relied on the precedent set in Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others (2007) 12 SCC 1, which mandates caution and the exhaustion of less coercive steps before issuing NBWs

regarding Section 82 Cr.P.C., the court applied the settled principle that a proclamation order is mandatory in its requirement to specify the time and place for the accused's appearance

Jurisdiction was invoked under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Court reasoned that while the petitioner was accused of non-bailable offences, the Magistrate failed to meet the condition precedent under Section 73 Cr.P.C., as the record lacked any material or judicial finding that the petitioner was actively concealing himself or evading arrest

Regarding the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the Court found a "grave error" in the Magistrate's failure to fix a specific time and place for appearance

The Court determined that these omissions constituted a failure to comply with statutory requirements and settled legal principles, rendering the orders procedurally defective and unsustainable in law

The prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding was rejected as not pressed [para. 4]. The Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, was granted liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law