The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against an accused who is physically unable to appear due to judicial custody in another case does not constitute wilful evasion, and such warrants may be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the absence is involuntary and beyond the accused’s control.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Manjeet Kumar Rai @ Manjeet Kumar Yadav, is a resident of Saharanpur district. He was named as an accused in Case Crime No. 134 of 2021, registered at Police Station GRP, Charbagh, Lucknow, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, relating to allegations of kidnapping and abduction. The investigation concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet on 07.08.2021.
Key Facts
- The applicant was initially granted bail during investigation by the Special Judge, POCSO Act-I/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow, on 18.02.2021 (Annexure No. 7 to affidavit)
- Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-2, Lucknow, on 25.08.2021
- On 25.08.2021, the applicant was in judicial custody in a separate case and was therefore directed to be produced from jail
- After his release from custody, the applicant appeared before the trial court
- On 16.04.2022, the applicant failed to appear before the trial court, leading to the recording of examination-in-chief of PW-2 and issuance of a non-bailable warrant
- On 16.04.2022, the applicant was in judicial custody in Bihar, in a case registered at Police Station Jaddopur, District Gopalganj
- The applicant’s non-appearance was not deliberate; he was physically detained in another jurisdiction
- The cross-examination of PW-2 could not be conducted due to his absence
Procedural History
- 18.02.2021: Applicant granted bail during investigation by Special Judge, POCSO Act-I, Lucknow
- 07.08.2021: Charge-sheet filed under Sections 363 and 366 IPC
- 25.08.2021: Cognizance taken by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-2, Lucknow; applicant produced from custody
- 16.04.2022: Applicant failed to appear; non-bailable warrant issued; PW-2’s examination-in-chief recorded
- 19.06.2026: Present petition under Section 482 CrPC filed before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of:
- The cognizance order dated 25.08.2021
- The non-bailable warrant dated 16.04.2022
- The entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 1303 of 2021
- The charge-sheet dated 07.08.2021
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the issuance of a non-bailable warrant under Section 70 CrPC is justified when the accused’s non-appearance is due to judicial custody in another case, and whether such a warrant can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on grounds of abuse of process or manifest injustice.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel argued that the applicant’s absence on 16.04.2022 was not voluntary or contumacious, but resulted from his lawful detention in Bihar. He relied on the fact that he had previously been granted bail during investigation and had appeared before the court after release. The issuance of a non-bailable warrant under these circumstances, he submitted, was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice and proportionality. He cited Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and Aman Preet Singh v. CBI to argue that courts must consider prior bail history and the reason for non-appearance before resorting to coercive measures.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the factual assertion that the applicant was in judicial custody in Bihar on 16.04.2022. The Government Advocate did not argue that the absence was wilful or that the warrant was necessary for securing attendance. No counter-affidavit or justification for the warrant’s issuance was filed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the applicant had been granted bail during investigation, indicating that the trial court had earlier found no risk of flight or tampering. The applicant had also appeared before the court after his release from custody. His subsequent non-appearance was not due to evasion but because he was lawfully detained in another state.
"The absence of the applicant was neither deliberate nor intentional, but was due to circumstances beyond his control."
The Court emphasized that Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of the process of the court or are otherwise manifestly unjust. The issuance of a non-bailable warrant under these circumstances, without any inquiry into the cause of absence, amounted to mechanical application of procedure without regard to fairness.
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin and Aman Preet Singh has held that prior bail during investigation is a relevant factor in considering bail at trial, and that courts must avoid disproportionate coercive measures where the accused has demonstrated compliance. The trial court, therefore, must reconsider the applicant’s bail application in light of these precedents.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The non-bailable warrant dated 16.04.2022 is stayed for a period of three weeks from today or until the applicant appears before the trial court, whichever is earlier
- The applicant is directed to appear before the trial court and file an application for bail
- The trial court shall consider the applicant’s release on furnishing fresh bail bonds, taking into account his prior bail during investigation and the Supreme Court judgments in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and Aman Preet Singh v. CBI
What This Means For Similar Cases
Absence Due to Custody Is Not Contumacy
- Practitioners must argue that judicial custody in another jurisdiction automatically negates any presumption of wilful non-appearance
- Courts cannot issue non-bailable warrants without verifying the accused’s physical availability
- A single hearing absence, without inquiry into cause, cannot justify coercive action
Bail History Must Inform Trial Decisions
- Prior grant of bail during investigation is a strong indicator of low flight risk
- Trial courts must revisit bail applications with reference to Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin and Aman Preet Singh
- Fresh bail bonds may be required, but denial of bail solely due to one missed hearing is legally unsustainable
Procedural Due Process Under Section 482 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC is a viable remedy where procedural arbitrariness undermines substantive justice
- Courts must avoid mechanical issuance of warrants without contextual assessment
- Failure to consider external constraints on attendance renders proceedings liable to quashment
