Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Without Legal Sanction Violated Personal Liberty, Court Upholds Constitutional Rights
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has granted bail to Srinivaschary K.R., who faced serious allegations of extracting money under threat of digital arrest. The court found that the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBWA) against the petitioner prior to his scheduled appearance date was unwarranted and violated his personal liberty, leading to an illegal remand to judicial custody.
The bail application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), was presided over by Justice G. Satapathy. The petitioner was accused of offenses punishable under various sections of the BNSS and Information Technology Act, involving extortion of Rs. 63 lakhs. Despite the gravity of accusations, the court noted procedural lapses in handling the arrest.
The petitioner received a notice under Section 35 of BNSS to appear before the Bhuban Police Station on September 1, 2025. However, the Investigating Officer (IO) prematurely sought a NBWA on August 14, 2025, leading to its issuance by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhuban. The court criticized this action as a breach of personal liberty and lacking legal sanction, emphasizing that NBWA should only be a last resort when other measures fail to ensure the accused's appearance.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Directorate of Enforcement v. Subash Sharma (2025 SCC Online SC 240), Justice Satapathy underscored the duty of courts to uphold fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court had previously held that any violation of these rights during or post-arrest necessitates the granting of bail, as such arrests are considered vitiated.
In light of these findings, the High Court ordered the release of Srinivaschary K.R. on bail, setting conditions for his appearance at trial. He is required to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 2,00,000 with two solvent sureties of the same amount. The court stipulated that the petitioner must attend all trial dates unless exempted, and warned of proceedings under Section 269 of BNSS for non-compliance without sufficient cause.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring legal procedures are adhered to, thereby preventing unwarranted infringement on personal liberties. Legal experts have hailed the decision as a reaffirmation of fundamental rights and due process, stressing the importance of judicial oversight in cases involving arrest and remand.
Bottom Line:
Bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant (NBWA) without legal sanction and subsequent remand to judicial custody held illegal - Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution violated during arrest or post-arrest must lead to granting bail.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 35, 269, 483; Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 21, 22; Information Technology Act Sections 66(C), 66(D)
