Court says non-bailable warrant and subsequent proclamation were justified under BNSS provisions to aid investigation in alleged organized crime case
The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with a trial court’s orders issuing a non-bailable warrant and later a proclamation against Md. Nazibuddin alias Tulu Mondal, holding that the steps were legally justified because the accused had already left India before the FIR was registered.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, hearing Criminal Revisional Application CRR 3444 of 2026, dismissed the challenge to orders dated July 30, 2026 and August 10, 2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum. The trial court had issued a non-bailable warrant under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, followed by a proclamation under Section 84 after the warrant could not be executed.
The petitioner argued that the trial court acted in undue haste, since the FIR in Mohammad Bazar Police Station Case No. 267 of 2026 was registered on July 30, 2026 and the warrant was issued on the same day. It was contended that there was no material to conclude that he was “evading arrest,” and that the quick issuance of the warrant deprived him of the opportunity to seek pre-arrest bail. The petitioner also challenged the proclamation order, claiming that the statutory conditions under Section 84 had not been properly satisfied.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that the investigating agency had learnt through the NATGRID portal that the petitioner had left India on May 23, 2026, well before the criminal case was initiated. According to the State, once this information surfaced, the police moved the court for a warrant to facilitate investigation. When the warrant could not be executed, a non-execution report was filed and the proclamation was issued.
After examining the record, including a sealed report dated September 22, 2026 from the Inspector-in-Charge of Mohammad Bazar Police Station, the High Court accepted the State’s position. The Court noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner had left the country on May 23, 2026, before the FIR was lodged. In that background, the Court held that the petitioner’s argument about insufficient time to establish evasion of arrest lost significance.
Justice Bhattacharyya observed that if the accused had been within the country, the usual procedural exercise under the law would have been necessary before a warrant could be issued. However, since the petitioner was already abroad when the prosecution began, the court below committed no error in issuing the warrant to aid investigation.
The High Court also distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, noting that the issue there concerned issuance of warrant during investigation for production of the accused before the Magistrate under the old CrPC framework. The present case, the Court said, was materially different because the accused had left India before proceedings began.
The Court further recorded that the case materials revealed recovery of substantial cash, gold bars weighing 15 kilograms, and physical and electronic documents indicating alleged organized crime, along with large sums found in various bank accounts. In view of these circumstances, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the revisional application.
Bottom Line :
Issuance of non-bailable warrant and subsequent proclamation under Sections 75 and 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was upheld where the accused had admittedly left the country before registration of the FIR; in such circumstances, challenge based on absence of sufficient time to infer “evading arrest” was rejected.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 75, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 84, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 175
Md. Nazibuddin @ Tulu Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2984385
