Subsequent grant of regular bail led the Court to refrain from reviewing the custody order.

The petitioner had been convicted under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and sentenced to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine.

During his appeal, the Sessions Court suspended the conviction and released him on bail, but later issued a non-bailable warrant after rejecting his application for exemption from personal appearance; it subsequently rejected his request to cancel the warrant and directed that he be taken into custody.

The petitioner challenged those orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing, among other things, that the warrant was unnecessary and that his absence had been explained.

After the High Court reserved the matter for judgment, it was informed that the Sessions Court had granted the petitioner regular bail and restored the suspension-of-sentence order.

Whether the Sessions Court’s rejection of the application to cancel the non-bailable warrant and its direction to take the petitioner into custody called for interference.

Whether the petitioner’s nondisclosure of the pending bail proceedings affected his entitlement to discretionary relief.

Under Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, a non-bailable warrant should ordinarily issue only where summons or a bailable warrant is unlikely to secure the person’s appearance.

Under K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, a litigant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 must candidly disclose all material facts; suppression or misleading disclosure may justify refusing relief without examining the merits.

The Court also referred to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528, as stated in the petition.

The subsequent regular-bail order was made under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

The Court considered the pending bail application material because its relief overlapped with the relief sought in the petition, and found that the petitioner had not disclosed it either in the petition or at the relevant hearing.

The Court observed that the omission could have justified dismissal for suppression, but, as it intended to consider the challenge on its merits in light of Inder Mohan Goswami, it proceeded to that stage.

Before deciding the merits, however, the Court was informed that the Sessions Court had granted regular bail and restored the earlier suspension order; the Court therefore did not determine whether the warrant-related orders were lawful.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.