Court Emphasizes Need for Judicial Caution and Adherence to Procedural Safeguards in Issuing NBWs
In a significant judgment delivered on September 17, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, quashed the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against B Vijaya Sai, the petitioner accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found that the warrant was issued without adhering to necessary procedural prerequisites and statutory guidelines, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion and procedural safeguards.
The petitioner, aged 70 and a resident of Karnataka, challenged the issuance of the NBW by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparti, arguing that it was issued without prior summons or bailable warrants, and without recording any reasons. It was contended that the notice was incorrectly addressed to an Andhra Pradesh address, resulting in the warrant being marked as "unclaimed."
Justice Kuncheam highlighted the crucial statutory provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly Sections 90, 91, 72, and 528, which mirror the procedural safeguards found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These provisions mandate that NBWs should only be issued after careful consideration of the circumstances and recording of reasons, ensuring that such coercive measures are not employed routinely or mechanically.
The court drew upon precedents set by the Supreme Court of India, notably the cases of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, which stress that NBWs should only be issued when lesser coercive measures like summons or bailable warrants are unlikely to succeed. The court underscored that the exercise of judicial discretion must be judicious, reasonable, and accompanied by recorded reasons to safeguard against arbitrariness, thereby protecting individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In its order, the High Court directed the recall of the NBW issued against the petitioner, instructing him to appear before the trial court within two weeks. It reiterated that the trial court must ensure adherence to due process, emphasizing that NBWs are a last resort and should only be issued when absolutely necessary.
This judgment reinforces the judicial principle that individual liberty cannot be compromised without adequate justification and serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in balancing the rights of individuals against the interests of the state.
Bottom Line :
Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) without prior summons or bailable warrants and without recording reasons is unsustainable and contravenes statutory provisions and judicial guidelines.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 90, 91, 72, 528; Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21
B Vijaya Sai v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2981181
