Warrants issued before notice or bailable warrants to be set aside: Gujarat High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) No. 535 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH Sd/­
===========================================================
1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
Yes
2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
No
4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
No
================================================================
JAYSUKH @ JAYESH MULJIBHAI RANPARIYA ( PATEL )….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT….Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRUPAM NANAVATI, SENIOR COUNSEL with MR.VIRAL K SHAH,
ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1.
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MR. MANAN MEHTA,
Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent(s) No. 1.
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 20/10/2016
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule.   Mr.   Mitesh   Amin,   learned   Public
Prosecutor with Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP
waives   service   of   notice   of   Rule   for
Respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.
Page 1 of 28
HC-NIC Page 1 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
2. Heard   learned   Senior   Advocate   Mr.Nirupam
Nanavati   with   Mr.   Viral   K.   Shah,   learned
advocate   for   the   Petitioner   as   well   as
Mr.Mitesh   Amin,   learned   Public   Prosecutor
with   Mr.   Manan   Mehta,   learned   APP   for   the
Respondent – State. Perused the record.
3. The   Petitioner   herein   is   accused   with
reference   to   Jamnagar   City   `A’   Division
Police   Station   vide   I­CR   No.105   of   2016
registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 504,
506(2), 34 and 120(B) of IPC. The allegation
in the FIR is to the effect that the property
worth more than Rs.100 crores has been sold
of   by   bogus   power   of   attorney   deed.
Therefore, complaint is filed against as many
as   13   accused   amongst   which   present
Petitioner is accused No.1.
4. However,   at   present,   the   impugned   order   is
dated   2.7.2016   below   the   letters   dated
22.7.2016   and   13.6.2016   by   the   PI   of   LCB
police station, Jamnagar which are treated as
applications   by   the   Chief   Judicial
Magistrate,   Jamnagar.   By   such   letter
applications,   Investigating   Officer   has
requested   to   issue   warrant   in   English
language so as to enable them to execute such
warrant upon present Petitioner alleging that
Page 2 of 28
HC-NIC Page 2 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
he   is   avoiding   his   arrest   and   selected   his
hideouts   in   other   State   submitting   that   in
other State, a warrant of Court in English is
necessary   for   arresting   any   such   accused.
Such warrant is prayed for with reference to
Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
5. If   we   peruse   the   application,   it   becomes
clear   that   the   only   allegation   in   the
application   is   to   the   effect   that   when
Investigating   Officer   tried   to   arrest   the
accused, he could not be found at his last
known address and though his application for
anticipatory   bail   is   cancelled,   he   is   not
available   for   investigation   or   arrest   and,
thereby, he is absconding and avoiding arrest
and   probably   he   has   hidden   in   some   other
State and, thereby, there is no possibility
to arrest him in near further and, therefore,
when police of other State is demanding the
warrant   by   the   Court   in   English   so   as   to
arrest   such   person   who   are   hiding   in   such
other State, there is need of warrant under
Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973   in   English.   It   is   also   contended   that
Petitioner was not available at his residence
on   different   dates   which   is   listed   in   such
application viz; 27, 28, 29 May, 2016 and 10,
Page 3 of 28
HC-NIC Page 3 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
12, 28, 29 of June, 2016. When application is
seeking warrant under Section 70 of the Code
of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973,   (For   short
`Code’)   initially   provision   of   Section   70
needs   to   be   referred   here,   which   reads   as
under: ­
Form of warrant of arrest and duration: ­
1. Every warrant of arrest issued by
a Court under this Code shall be
in   writing,   signed   by   the
presiding   officer   of   such   Court
and   shall   bear   the   seal   of   the
Court.
2. Every   such   warrant   shall   remain
in force until it is cancelled by
the   Court   which   issued   it,   or
until it is executed.
6. The bare reading of above provision makes it
clear   that   it   is   providing   the   manner   in
which warrant is to be issued i.e. it shall
be in writing and signed by the Officer of
the   Court   and   shall   bear   the   seal   of   the
Court and that it shall remain in force until
it is cancelled by the Court or until it is
executed.   Therefore,   practically,   it   seems
that, though the Investigating Officer wants
a warrant as provided under Section 70 of the
Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973,   enabling
provisions   to   issue   such   warrant   is   under
Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, which reads as under: ­
Page 4 of 28
HC-NIC Page 4 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
“Section   73.   Warrant   may   be
directed any person.
(1)  The   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate
or a Magistrate of the first class
may direct a warrant to any person
within   his   local   jurisdiction   for
the arrest of any escaped convict,
proclaimed   offender   or   of   any
person   who   is   accused   of   a   nonbailable,
offence   and   is   evading
arrest.
(2)  Such   person   shall   acknowledge
in   writing   the   receipt   of   the
warrant,   and   shall   execute   it   if
the person for whose arrest it was
issued,   is   in,   or   enters   on,   any
land   or   other   property   under   his
charge.
(3)  When   the   person   against   whom
such warrant is issued is arrested,
he   shall   be   made   over   with   the
warrant   to   the   nearest   police
officer, who shall cause him to be
taken   before   a   Magistrate   having
jurisdiction   in   the   case,   unless
security   is   taken   under   section
71.”
7. It   is   undisputed   fact   that   though   there   is
reference in sub Section (1) of Section 73 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to issue
warrant   against   “any   person,”   it   is   also
certain that such “any person” is thereafter
explained in the same Section, whereby, it is
stated that arrest of “any escape convict” or
“proclaimed offender” or “any person who is
accused   of   a   non­bailable   offence   and   is
evading arrest.”
Page 5 of 28
HC-NIC Page 5 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
8. Whereas,   in   sub   Section   (3)   of   Section
Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, it is made clear that when the person
against   whom   such   warrant   is   issued,   is
arrested,   he   should   be   taken   before   a
Magistrate   having   jurisdiction,   unless
security is taken under Section 71.
9. Section 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 empowers the Court to direct security to
be   taken.   Thereby,   any   Court   issuing   a
warrant for the arrest of any person may in
its discretion direct by intimation if such
person   executes   a   bond,   with   sufficient
sureties for his attendance before the Court
at   a   specified   time   and,   thereafter,   only
otherwise directed by the Court, the Officer
to   whom   the   warrant   is   directed   shall   take
such security and shall release such person
from custody.
10. Section 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 provides that person arrested is to be
brought before Court without delay confirming
that   the   Police   Officer   or   other   person
executing a warrant of arrest shall, subject
to   the   provisions   of   Section   71   as   to
security without unnecessary delay bring the
Page 6 of 28
HC-NIC Page 6 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
person arrested before the Court before which
he is required by law to produce such person,
with a proviso that such delay shall not, in
any case, exceed twenty­four hours exclusive
of   the   time   necessary   for   the   journey   from
the   place   of   arrest   to   the   Magistrate’s
Court.
11. Though   there   is   provision   of   Section   80   in
the   Code   regarding   procedure   on   arrest   of
person against whom warrant is issued making
it clear that unless the Court which issued
the   warrant   is   within   30   kilometers   of   the
place   of   arrest   or   is   nearer   than   the
Executive   Magistrate   or   District
Superintendent  of  Police   or Commissioner   of
Police   within   the   local   limits   of   whose
jurisdiction, the arrest was made or unless
security is taken under Section 71, he should
be taken before such Magistrate or District
Superintendent of Police or Commissioner; it
seems   that   the   proviso   of   Section   71
regarding twenty­four hours is being misused
by  the  Investigating   Agency  and,   therefore,
such   situation   is   arising   in   so   many   cases
when police asked for warrant prior to filing
of chargesheet.
12. The   core   issue   in   the   present   petition   is
Page 7 of 28
HC-NIC Page 7 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
practically to the effect that whether Court
is   empowered   to   issue   warrant   pending
investigation   and   direct   the   accused   to   be
arrested   for   the   purpose   of   investigation
though   chargesheet   is   not   yet   filed   before
the Court and, thereby, Court has not taken
cognizance.   Thus,   Court   can   issue   warrant
only after taking cognizance and to  proceed
further in accordance with law.
13. It seems that probably, there is practice to
issue   such   warrant   by   so   many   Courts   and,
therefore, it is submitted that the police of
other States are seeking such warrant to be
issued by an order of the Court. However, the
fact   remains   that  irrespective  of  practices
being   followed   on   different   places   by
different   Courts   and   different   authorities,
whenever, issue is raised before the Judicial
Authority,   Judicial   Authority   has   to   rely
solely upon the provisions of law and settled
legal position that may be emerging from the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on
the   subject.   Thereby,   irrespective   of   any
inconvenience   or   necessity   of   Investigating
Agency or any­one else, even if, benefit is
to be extended to the accused, then, there is
no option but to extend such benefit to the
accused irrespective of nature and gravity of
Page 8 of 28
HC-NIC Page 8 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
crime or nature of the offender.
14. One   such   glaring   example   is   the   case   of
Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar whose identity does not
need any details, but the full bench of the
Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   of   India   has,   in
similar   situation   decided   the   issue   in   his
favour   by   cancelling   the   warrant.   The   case
under   reference   is   of  State   through  CBI   v.
Dawood  Ibrahim  Kaskar  reported  in   2000  (10)
SCC 438 details of which would be taken care
hereinafter   in   sequence   of   facts   and   case
law.
15. The   other   core   issue   is   the   concept   of
“Custody”   of   such   accused   when   he   has
preferred   several   litigations   before   the
competent  authority  either  for  quashing  the
complaint   against   him   or   for   anticipatory
bail   or   by   challenging   any   such   order   of
issuance   of   warrant   as   challenged   in   the
present   petition.   It   is   settled   legal
position that once a person surrenders to the
jurisdiction of the Court of law, he is to be
treated   either   in   custody   or
care/protection/shelter   of   the   Courts   where
he   is   praying   some   equitable   reliefs   based
upon   the   constitutional   rights.     The
Page 9 of 28
HC-NIC Page 9 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
reference to the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna
v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2014(16)
SCC 623  would be material, wherein, meaning
of custody is elaborated confirming the view
taken in this judgment.
16. In   the   present   case,   though   during   the
argument, it is emphasized that trial Court
has   no   jurisdiction   to   allow   such   an
application to issue a warrant to arrest and
produce   the   Petitioner   before   the   Police
Officer   pending   investigation,   the   sum   and
substance of the Revision Petition is to the
effect   that   when   Petitioner   was   very   well
before   the   Judicial   Authority,   right   from
27.5.2016   i.e.   2nd  day   of   the   FIR   i.e.
25.5.2016 till filing of such application, it
cannot be said that Petitioner is absconder
and, therefore, there is no reason to issue
warrant against him. It is further submitted
that during such period of almost more than
one month, Petitioner has exhausted his legal
rights   to   quash   the   complaint   or   to   get
anticipatory   bail   but   since   he   could   not
succeed in any such prayer, it cannot be said
that he is absconding and, therefore, warrant
is   required   to   be   issued   as   per   impugned
order.   If   we   peruse   the   impugned   order,   it
Page 10 of 28
HC-NIC Page 10 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
becomes   clear   that   learned   Chief   Judicial
Magistrate,  Jamnagar   has  purely  relied  upon
the   statement   of   the   later   application   and
one judgment cited before it in the case of
Nazzimudin Fakrudin Kazi v. State of Gujarat
reported in 2016(1) GLR 208.
17. As   against   that   Petitioner   is   relying   upon
the   case   of  Narayan   @   Narayan   Sai   @   Mota
Bhagwan S/o. Ashram Bapu v. State of Gujarat
repoted   in   2013(0)   AIJEL   –   HC   231437.
Therefore,   this   Court   has   no   option   but   to
discuss the rival submission before deciding
the   case   finally   by   referring   all   relevant
judgments on the subject.
18. Otherwise   also   the   factual   details   are   not
much   material   at   this   stage   because   it   is
undisputed fact that there is FIR against the
Petitioner and that he could not succeed in
quashing   such   FIR   or   getting   anticipatory
bail and, therefore, sooner or later he would
be arrested by the police. Thereby, he has no
option   but   to   surrender   to   the   Judicial
Authority   for   facing   the   trial   and   before
that,   he   needs   to   cooperate   with   the
investigating   agency   so   as   to   enable   the
Investigating   Officer   to   complete   the
Page 11 of 28
HC-NIC Page 11 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
investigation.   At   this   stage,   it   is   also
clear   that   if   Petitioner   has   not   committed
any   offence   then   he   has   no   reason   to   be
afraid of appearing before the Investigating
Officer   and   to   submit   his   case   with   an
attempt to convince the Investigating Agency
that either he has not committed offence or
there   is   no   evidence   against   him   to   prove
that he has committed any offence. But hiding
from   investigation   would   certainly   result
into issuance of such warrant, may be because
of   the   aforesaid,   such   practice   is   being
followed   and   also   on   account   of   different
decisions on such issue by different Courts.
19. In any case, the law is well settled that the
Court   cannot   issue   warrant   in   aid   of
investigation prior to filing of chargesheet
and   it   is   also   well   settled   position   that
once litigant is before the Court by filing
of any proceeding, then, he is to be treated
in   judicial   custody   and   in   that   case,   it
would be appropriate for the concerned Court
to   pass   appropriate   direction   to   such
Petitioner   to   appear   before   the   competent
authority   in   aid   of   investigation   and   to
ensure   that   investigation   is   completed.
During   such   exercise,   the   only   concern   of
accused   may   be   regarding   the   powers   of   the
Page 12 of 28
HC-NIC Page 12 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
Investigating   Agency   to   keep   him   in   police
custody   at­least   for   twenty   four   hours.
Therefore, if that part is taken care of, the
entire issue would be resolved with respect
to   all   cases   without   multiplicity   of
proceedings in nature of present litigation.
20. For the purpose, following citations needs to
be referred here:
[1] Inder   Mohan   Goswami   v.   State   of
Uttaranchal   reported   in   2007   (12)   SCC   1,
wherein,   the   full   bench   of   Hon’ble   Supreme
Court of India has categorically held that;
“47. Before   parting   with   this
appeal, we would like to discuss an
issue   which   is   of   great   public
importance,   i.e.,   how   and   when
warrants   should   be   issued   by   the
Court?   It   has   come   to   our   notice
that   in   many   cases   that   bailable
and   non­bailable   warrants   are
issued   casually   and   mechanically.
In   the   instant   case,   the   court
without  properly  comprehending  the
nature of controversy involved and
without   exhausting   the   available
remedies   issued   non­bailable
warrants.   The   trial   court
disregarded   the   settled   legal
position clearly enumerated in the
following two cases.
48. In   Omwati   v.State   of   UP   &
Another   (2004)   4   SCC   425,   this
court   dealt   with   a   rather   unusual
matter   wherein   the   High   Court
firstly   issued   bailable   warrants
Page 13 of 28
HC-NIC Page 13 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
against   the   appellant   and
thereafter  by issuing  non­bailable
warrants put the complainant of the
case   behind   bars   without   going
through the facts of the case. This
Court observed that the unfortunate
sequel of such unmindful orders has
been   that   the   appellant   was   taken
into custody and had to remain in
jail   for   a   few   days,   but   without
any   justification   whatsoever.   She
suffered because facts of the case
were   not   considered   in   proper
perspective   before   passing   the
orders.   The   court   also   observed
that   some   degree   of   care   is
supposed to be taken before issuing
warrants.
49. In   State   of U.P. v.   Poosu   &
Another (1976) 3 SCC 1 at para 13
page 5, the Court observed:
“13…….Whether   in   the
circumstances   of   the   case,   the
attendance   of   the   accused
Respondent   can   be   best   secured   by
issuing a bailable warrant or nonbailable
warrant, is a matter which
rests entirely in the discretion of
the court. Although, the discretion
is exercised judiciously, it is not
possible to computerize and reduce
into immutable formulae the diverse
considerations   on   the   basis   of
which this discretion is exercised.
Broadly   speaking,   the   court   would
take   into   account   the   various
factors   such   as   the   nature   and
seriousness   of   the   offence,   the
character   of   the   evidence,
circumstances   peculiar   to   the
accused,   possibility   of   his
absconding, larger interest of the
public and the State”.
Page 14 of 28
HC-NIC Page 14 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
Personal   liberty   and   the   interest
of the State
50. Civilized   countries   have
recognized that liberty is the most
precious   of   all   the   human   rights.
The   American   Declaration   of
Independence   1776,   French
Declaration   of   the   Rights   of   Men
and   the   Citizen   1789,   Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant of Civil and
Political   Rights   1966   all   speak
with   one   voice   ­   liberty   is   the
natural   and   inalienable   right   of
every   human   being.   Similarly,
Article   21   of   our   Constitution
proclaims   that   no   one   shall   be
deprived   of   his   liberty   except   in
accordance   with   the   procedure
prescribed by law.
51. The   issuance   of   non­bailable
warrants involves interference with
personal   liberty.   Arrest   and
imprisonment   means   deprivation   of
the   most   precious   right   of   an
individual.   Therefore,   the   courts
have to be extremely careful before
issuing non­bailable warrants.
52. Just   as   liberty   is   precious
for   an   individual   so   is   the
interest   of   the   society   in
maintaining law and order. Both are
extremely   important   for   the
survival   of   a   civilized   society.
Sometimes in the larger interest of
the Public and the State it becomes
absolutely   imperative   to   curtail
freedom   of   an   individual   for   a
certain period, only then the nonbailable
warrants should be issued.
When   non­bailable   warrants   should
be issued
Page 15 of 28
HC-NIC Page 15 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
53. Non­bailable warrant should be
issued to bring a person to court
when   summons   of   bailable   warrants
would   be   unlikely   to   have   the
desired result. This could be when:
* it is reasonable to believe that
the   person   will   not   voluntarily
appear in court; or
*   the   police   authorities   are
unable to find the person to serve
him with a summon; or
* it is considered that the person
could   harm   someone   if   not   placed
into custody immediately.
54. As   far   as   possible,   if   the
court   is   of   the   opinion   that   a
summon will suffice in getting the
appearance   of   the   accused   in   the
court,   the   summon   or   the   bailable
warrants   should   be   preferred.   The
warrants   either   bailable   or   nonbailable
should   never   be   issued
without   proper   scrutiny   of   facts
and   complete   application   of   mind,
due   to   the   extremely   serious
consequences   and   ramifications
which   ensue   on   issuance   of
warrants.   The   court   must   very
carefully   examine   whether   the
Criminal   Complaint   or   FIR   has   not
been filed with an oblique motive.
55. In   complaint   cases,   at   the
first   instance,   the   court   should
direct serving of the summons along
with the copy of the complaint. If
the accused seem to be avoiding the
summons,   the   court,   in   the   second
instance   should   issue   bailablewarrant.
In   the   third   instance,
when   the   court   is   fully   satisfied
that   the   accused   is   avoiding   the
courts   proceeding   intentionally,
the process of issuance of the nonPage
16 of 28
HC-NIC Page 16 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
bailable warrant should be resorted
to. Personal liberty is paramount,
therefore, we caution courts at the
first   and   second   instance   to
refrain   from   issuing   non­bailable
warrants.
56. The   power   being   discretionary
must be exercised judiciously with
extreme care and caution. The court
should   properly   balance   both
personal   liberty   and   societal
interest   before   issuing   warrants.
There cannot be any straight­jacket
formula   for   issuance   of   warrants
but   as   a   general   rule,   unless   an
accused   is   charged   with   the
commission   of   an   offence   of   a
heinous crime and it is feared that
he is likely to tamper or destroy
the evidence or is likely to evade
the   process   of   law,   issuance   of
non­bailable   warrants   should   be
avoided.
57. The   Court   should   try   to
maintain   proper   balance   between
individual liberty and the interest
of the public and the State while
issuing non­bailable warrant.
58. On   consideration   of   the
totality of facts and circumstances
of this case, the impugned judgment
and order of the High Court cannot
be sustained.”
[2] State   through   CBI   v.   Dawood   Ibrahim
Kaskar   reported   in   2000   (10)   SCC   438,
wherein,   the   full   bench   of   Hon’ble   Supreme
Court of India has categorically held that;
“6. From   the   impugned   order   we
Page 17 of 28
HC-NIC Page 17 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
find   that   before   the   Designated
Court it was submitted on behalf of
CBI   that   since   it   was   making
further   investigation   into   the
offences   in   respect   of   which
chargesheet   has   earlier   been
submitted and since the presence of
the   Respondents,   who   were
absconding,   was   absolutely
necessary   for   ascertainment   of
their roles, if any, in commission
of   the   offences,   it   was   felt
necessary to file the applications.
It was further submitted that only
after warrants and/or proclamations
as prayed for were issued, that it
(CBI) would be able to take further
coercive measure to compel them to
appear   before   the   Investigating
Agency for the purpose of intended
further investigation. According to
CBI  under Section   78 of   the   Code
and   Section   (3)(a)   of   TADA   the
Designated   Court   was   fully
empowered   to   issue   warrants   of
arrest   and   proclamations.   In
rejecting the above contention the
Designated   Court   held   that   after
cognizance was taken in respect of
an offence process could be issued
to the persons accused thereof only
to   compel   them   to   face   the   trial
but no such process could be issued
by   the   Court   in   aid   of
investigation   under Section   73 of
the Code.
12. The   moot   question   that   now
requires to be answered is whether
a   Court   can   issue   a   warrant   to
apprehend   a   person   during
investigation   for   his   production
before   police   in   aid   of   the
Page 18 of 28
HC-NIC Page 18 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
Investigating Agency.
13. Chapter   VI   of   the   Code   which
is   captioned   as   `processes   to
compel appearance’ consists of four
parts   part   A   relates   to   Summons;
part B to warrant of arrest; part C
to proclamation and attachment and
part   D   to   other   rules   regarding
processes.   Part   B,   with   which   we
are   primarily   concerned   in   these
appeals,   has   in   its   fold Section
70 to 81. Section 70 speaks of the
form in which the warrant to arrest
a   person   is   to   be   issued   by   the
Court   and   of   its   durational
validity. Section   71 empowers   the
Court issuing the warrant to direct
the officer who is to execute the
warrant, to release that person on
terms   and   condition   as   provided
therein. Section 72 provides that a
warrant   shall   ordinarily   be
directed   to   one   or   more   police
officers   but   if   its   immediate
execution   in   necessary   and   no
police   officer   is   immediate
available it may be directed to any
other person for execution.
24. Now   that   we   have   found
that Section   73 of   the   Code   is   of
general   application   and   that   in
course of the investigation a Court
can issue a warrant in exercise of
power   thereunder   to   apprehend,
inter alia, a person who is accused
of   a   non­bailable   offence   and   is
evading arrest, we need answer the
related question as to whether such
issuance of warrant can be for his
production before the police in aid
of   investigation.   It   cannot   be
Page 19 of 28
HC-NIC Page 19 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
gainsaid   that   a   Magistrate   plays,
not   infrequently,   a   role   during
investigation,   in   that,   on   the
prayer of the Investigating Agency
he   holds   a   test   identification
parade,   records   the   confession   of
an   accused   or   the   statement   of   a
witness, or takes or witnesses the
taking   of   specimen   handwritings
etc. However, in performing such or
similar   functions   the   Magistrate
does   not   exercise   judicial
discretion like while dealing with
an   accused   of   a   non­bailable
offence who is produced before him
pursuant   to   a   warrant   of   arrest
issued   under  Section   73.   On   such
production,   the   Court   may   either
release   him   on   bail   under Section
439 or   authorise   his   detention   in
custody (either police or judicial)
under Section   167 of   the   Code.
Whether   the   Magistrate,   on   being
moved by the Investigating Agency,
will   entertain   its   prayer   for
police custody will be at his sole
discretion   which   has   to   be
judicially   exercised   in  accordance
with  Section   167 (3) of   the   Code.
Since warrant is and can be issued
for   appearance   before   the   Court
only and not before the police and
since   authorisation   for   detention
in police custody is neither to be
given as a matter of course nor on
the mere asking of the police, but
only   after   exercise   of   judicial
discretion   based   on   materials
placed   before   him,   Mr.   Desai   was
not   absolutely   right   in   his
submission   that   warrant   of   arrest
under Section 73 of the Code could
be issued by the Court solely for
Page 20 of 28
HC-NIC Page 20 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
the   production   of   the   accused
before   the   police   in   aid   of
investigation.”
[3] Vikas v. State of Rajasthan reported in
AIR   2014   SC   (Supp)   1124,  wherein,   the   full
bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
categorically held that;
“14.  The   Constitution   of   India
is the grundnorm­ the paramount law
of   the   country.   All   other   laws
derive   their   origin   and   are
supplementary and incidental to the
principles   laid   down   in   the
Constitution.   Therefore,   Criminal
Law   also   derives   its   source   and
sustenance   from   the   Constitution.
The   Constitution,   on   one   hand,
guarantees   the   Right   to   Life   and
Liberty   to   its   citizens   under
Article   21   and   on   the   other   hand
imposes a duty and an obligation on
the Judges while discharging their
judicial   function   to   protect   and
promote   the   liberty   of   the
citizens.”
21. Though law is well settled by above referred
decisions   of   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   of
India,   it   seems   that   when   learned   Single
Judge   in   case   of  Nazzimudin   Fakrudin   Kazi
(Supra)  held   that   warrant   under   Section   70
can be issued at the stage of investigation
if a person accused of non bailable offence
is   evading   arrest.   However,   it   is   also
Page 21 of 28
HC-NIC Page 21 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
clarified in the judgment that the person was
arrested   in   execution   of   warrant   and   was
required to be brought before the Magistrate
who   may   then   follow   appropriate   course
available under Section 167 or Section 439 of
the Code and, thereby, confirmed the order by
Chief   Judicial   Magistrate   issuing   warrant
against the Petitioner in that case.
22. The learned Single Judge has pointed out the
difference of opinion in such reported case
and in the case of  Narayan @ Narayan Sai @
Mota   Bhagwan   (Supra),   wherein,   another
learned Single Judge of this High Court has
taken a contrary view prior to such reported
judgment   relying   upon   the   case   of  State
through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar (Supra)
and thereby confirming that warrant cannot be
issued   in   aid   of   investigation,   as   prayed
for.   It   is   submitted   that   though   this
judgment   has   been   cited   before   the   learned
Single   Judge   in   the   case   of  Nazzimudin
Fakrudin   Kazi   v.   State   of   Gujarat   (Supra)
without   disclosing   that   how   it   has   been
distinguished   or   how   it   is   not   applicable
when   learned   Single   Judge   is   taking   a
different   view,   practically,   learned   Single
Judge has to refer the matter to the larger
Page 22 of 28
HC-NIC Page 22 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
bench.   At   present,   I   do   not   wish   to   enter
into such controversy regarding reference of
such case to the larger bench but it is clear
that   thereby   learned   counsel   is   suggesting
that if at all this Court is of the view to
rely   upon   the   judgment   in   the   case   of
Nazzimudin   Fakrudin   Kazi   (Supra)  then   the
Court should refer the matter to the larger
bench for appropriate directions in view of
conflicting   decisions.   However,   when   I   am
relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India referred hereinabove, I do not
see any reason to rely upon the judgment of
Nazzimudin   Fakrudin   Kazi   (Supra),   more
particularly,   when   in   my   opinion,   in   such
cases, in addition to quashing the order of
issuance   of   warrant,   what   is   required   is
direction to the Petitioner who is consider
in   judicial   custody,   to   appear   before   the
Investigating   Agency   safeguarding   his
apprehension   of   being   arrested   and   keep   in
police   custody   for   twenty   four   hours
considering   it   as   their   absolute   right   and
thereby taken it as granted by Investigating
Agency   that   they   are   entitled   to   detain   a
person for twenty four hours irrespective of
nature of crime and person concerned.
23. It is also evident from above discussion and
Page 23 of 28
HC-NIC Page 23 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
provision   of   law   that   in   any   case,   in
compoundable   offences,   non   bailable   warrant
cannot   be   issued   but   initially   even
Investigating Officer has to issue a notice
to the accused to remain present before him
as   provided   under   Section   160   of   the   Code
which empowers the police officers to require
attendance   of   any   person   before   him   though
the word used in the Section is witness. In
general,   there   is   necessity   to   initially
issue   such   notice   and   on   non­compliance   of
such notice, bailable warrant and then only
non­bailable warrant or otherwise police has
got inherent power to inquiry from anybody,
if   there   is   sufficient   evidence   with   him
regarding commission of particular offence by
any such person, for which order of warrant
by judicial authority is not required at all.
24. However,   as   aforesaid,   such   issue   can   be
resolved by quashing the order of issuance of
warrant   in   aid   of   investigation   but   with
direction to the Petitioner to remain present
before the Investigating Officer to see that
investigation is completed and in that case
Investigating   Officer   may   arrest   the
Petitioner   and   may   be   produced   before   the
Magistrate   immediately   at   the   earliest
without   waiting   for   twenty   four   hours
Page 24 of 28
HC-NIC Page 24 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
considering   the   fact   that   period   of   twenty
four   hours   is   not   mandatory   and   must   as
provided under Section 76 of the Code, which
provides that such person shall be produced
before   the   competent   Court   without
unnecessary   delay.   Thereby,   what   is
emphasized   in   Section   76   is   production
without   unnecessary   delay   but   with   a   rider
that such delay should never be beyond twenty
four hours. Therefore, it cannot be said that
police   is   permitted   to   keep   the   accused   in
its   custody   for   twenty   four   hours
irrespective   of   all   other         issues   like
nature and gravity of offence, so also nature
of   accused.   Thereby,   though   there   is   no
classification amongst criminals, it is quite
clear   that   if   some   hardcore   criminal   is
arrested and if investigation is ongoing to
get   certain   information   or   evidence,   then,
there   may   be   delay   in   production   of   person
before the Court but in cases where offence
is on paper, probably, there is no need to
keep   the   accused   in   police   custody   beyond
office   hours   or   at­least   overnight.   At   the
most,   if   Investigating   Agency   is   of   the
opinion that continuous police interrogation
is required to avail certain information and
evidence   then,   in   that   case,   police   can
certainly apply for remand.
Page 25 of 28
HC-NIC Page 25 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
25. A   reference   to   the   case   of  Kamal   Kishin
Lougani   v.   Senior   Intelligence   Officer   in
Criminal   Misc.   Case   No.2023   of   2016  by
Division Bench of Kerala High Court would be
relevant, wherein, in similar situation, the
Court   has   issued   several   directions   and
practically  based  upon  such  directions,  the
Investigating  Agency   has  considered  that   no
further order is required. A reference to the
order dated 16th  September, 2016  in the  case
of  Pravin   Kanabhai   Kandoriya   v.   State   of
Gujarat by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.6885 of
2016 is also material, wherein, by such order
dated   16th  September,   2016,   Hon’ble   Supreme
Court of India has also though rejected the
application for anticipatory bail and though
quashing petition was also rejected, extended
a benefit against arrest for four weeks with
a direction to the accused to appear before
the   Court   and   to   file   Regular   bail
application. It is also relevant to recollect
the order dated  22.7.2016 in   Special Leave
to   Appeal   (Criminal)   No.5350   of   2016  by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Kamlesh Lakhubhai Falia v. State of Gujarat,
wherein also, though benefit of anticipatory
Page 26 of 28
HC-NIC Page 26 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
bail has been refused by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India   has   directed   the   Petitioner   to
surrender before the trial Court and to make
an application for bail with a direction to
decide the same at the earliest in accordance
with law.
26. In   view   of   above   facts   and   circumstances,
when   there   is   material   irregularity   and
illegality   in   the   impugned   judgment,   by
issuance   of warrant,   without   serving   notice
or bailable warrant and that too in aid of
investigation   without   direction   to   produce
the   accused   before   the   appropriate   Court,
impugned   order   dated   2.7.2016   by   the   Chief
Judicial   Magistrate,   Jamnagar   is   hereby
quashed   and   set   aside   but   with   following
directions;
(A) The   Petitioner   shall   appear
before   the   Investigating   Officer
within a period of  four  weeks from
today with prior intimation to the
Investigating   Officer.   Such
appearance   shall   be   between   10.00
am   to   6.00   pm   during   which
Investigating   Officer   shall
Page 27 of 28
HC-NIC Page 27 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016
R/CR.RA/535/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
complete   the   investigation   of   the
case.
(B) If   at   all,   Investigating
Officer   requires   the   presence   of
Petitioner again on any other day,
then, Petitioner shall continue to
appear   before   the   Investigating
Officer as and when called upon by
the Investigating Officer but only
between 10.00 am and 6.00 pm.
(C) Petitioner   can   apply   for   bail
before   the   competent   Court   and
Investigating Officer can apply for
police custody if he so desire.
27. This application stands disposed of with the
above   observations   and   directions.   Rule   is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
Service is permitted.

Sd/-
(S.G.SHAH, J.)
* Vatsal
Page 28 of 28
HC-NIC Page 28 of
28
Created On Fri Nov 18 11:00:07 IST 2016