Introduction:

In the case of J. Chandra Lekha and G. Jayaraj v. State of Telangana and Another, Criminal Petition No. 9668 of 2025, the Telangana High Court delivered an important judgment on the misuse of non-bailable warrants (NBWs) at the initial stage of criminal proceedings. The petitioners, represented by Advocate Baglekar Akarsh Kumar, challenged the order of a Magistrate who issued NBWs against them during the summons stage of a case registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), namely Section 329(4) (punishment for house-trespass), Section 232 (threatening a person to give false evidence), Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation by threatening to cause death or grievous hurt), and Section 3(5) (common intention). The High Court, presided over by Justice N. Tukaramji, referred extensively to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) and concluded that the Magistrate had erred in issuing NBWs prematurely without following the sequential process mandated by law. The Court observed that non-bailable warrants are to be treated as a “last resort” measure and cannot be issued merely because the accused was listed as “absconding” in the charge sheet.

Arguments by the Petitioners:

The petitioners, through Advocate Baglekar Akarsh Kumar, argued that the Magistrate acted illegally and prematurely by issuing NBWs at the summons stage. According to them, the correct procedure required the issuance of summons first, followed by bailable warrants if they failed to appear, and only thereafter could non-bailable warrants be considered. They pointed out that they were never served with a summons under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which mandates the issuance of a notice of appearance before resorting to coercive processes. The petitioners further contended that their liberty was being compromised without any demonstrated necessity for judicial custody, since they were never arrested during the investigation nor was there any material to show that their custody was essential for completing the trial. They emphasized that even if a warrant was to be issued, it could only be bailable in nature, and that in any case, such an order could be recalled without insisting on their physical presence, given that their absence was neither deliberate nor with the intent to obstruct justice. The petitioners relied heavily on the Satender Kumar Antil guidelines, which expressly caution against the misuse of NBWs at the summons stage.

Arguments by the State:

On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, defended the Magistrate’s order by claiming that the petitioners had been shown as “absconding” in the charge sheet. The State contended that the petitioners had been evading proceedings since the filing of the charge sheet, and therefore, the Magistrate was justified in issuing NBWs to secure their presence. According to the prosecution, the label of “absconding” was sufficient to infer that summons alone would not ensure the appearance of the accused. The State stressed that coercive processes, including NBWs, were necessary tools in criminal proceedings to prevent accused persons from frustrating the trial process. It was also argued that the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing NBWs should not be lightly interfered with by the High Court, especially when the accused were avoiding participation in the judicial process.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully weighing the submissions, Justice N. Tukaramji observed that the Magistrate had departed from the sequential procedure mandated under law. Referring to Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the Court reiterated that where the accused has neither been arrested during investigation nor is there any material to suggest that their judicial custody is necessary, the court must first issue summons. Only in the event of non-compliance with summons can bailable warrants be issued, and NBWs may be resorted to only if the accused still fails to appear despite the service of bailable warrants. The High Court found that in the present case, no summons had been issued under Section 35(3) BNSS, and no notice of appearance was served upon the petitioners. Moreover, the Magistrate had failed to demonstrate any urgent requirement for securing the custody of the accused for the purpose of investigation or trial. Simply labeling the accused as “absconding” in the charge sheet, the Court held, was insufficient to justify the issuance of NBWs. The judgment emphasized that coercive measures cannot be issued mechanically, but require an independent judicial assessment of the materials produced by the investigating agency, including the allegations, the nature of the process already issued, and the necessity of custody. Justice Tukaramji categorically held that before issuing NBWs, the Magistrate is duty-bound to record reasons, even if briefly, as to why the presence or custody of the accused is essential. The Court went further to clarify the principles governing recall of NBWs, holding that as a general rule, applications for recall must be filed in the physical presence of the accused, but in exceptional cases where unavoidable circumstances prevent appearance, courts may consider recall applications even in absentia if satisfied with the bona fides of the reasons advanced. Finally, the High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order issuing NBWs, ruling that it was contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and was legally unsustainable. The judgment thus reaffirmed that issuance of NBWs must remain a last-resort measure, strictly regulated to protect the rights of the accused while ensuring the integrity of the trial process.