The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with a non-bailable warrant and subsequent proclamation issued against an accused in a criminal case, holding that the fact that the accused had left India before registration of the FIR rendered the contention that he was not given reasonable time to evade arrest insignificant.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Md. Nazibuddin @ Tulu Mondal challenging an order dated July 30, 2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum, issuing a non-bailable warrant against him, as well as a subsequent order dated August 10, 2026 issuing a proclamation requiring him to appear before the court on September 14, 2026.

The criminal case arose from Mohammad Bazar Police Station Case (FIR) No. 267/26, registered on July 30, 2026, in which the petitioner was arrayed as an accused.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that the non-bailable warrant was issued on the very same day that the FIR was registered, without the court first recording the necessary satisfaction that the petitioner was evading arrest.

Reliance was placed on Section 75(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which permits a Magistrate to issue a warrant against, among others, a person accused of a non-bailable offence who is evading arrest.

It was argued that the Magistrate had acted in haste by issuing the warrant on the day of registration of the FIR, thereby effectively foreclosing the petitioner's opportunity to approach the appropriate court for pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner also challenged the proclamation issued under Section 84(1) of the BNSS. It was submitted that before issuing such proclamation, the court was required to have reason to believe that the person against whom a warrant had been issued had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant could not be executed.

The petitioner contended that no such finding had been recorded before the Magistrate proceeded from issuance of the non-bailable warrant to the proclamation.

Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar & Others, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 438.

The State opposed the revision petition and placed before the High Court, in a sealed cover, a report dated September 22, 2026 submitted by the Inspector-in-Charge of Mohammad Bazar Police Station.

The State submitted that after registration of the criminal case on July 30, 2026, the investigating agency learnt through the NATGRID portal that the petitioner had left India on May 23, 2026.

According to the State, since the petitioner was already outside the country, the investigating agency approached the court for issuance of a warrant. The Magistrate accordingly issued the warrant on July 30, 2026, making it returnable on August 7, 2026.

The State further submitted that efforts were made by the Investigating Officer and police personnel to execute the warrant, but it could not be executed by August 7, following which a Non-Execution Report was submitted. Thereafter, the Magistrate issued the proclamation on August 10, requiring the petitioner to appear on September 14.

After examining the report, Justice Bhattacharyya noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner had left India on May 23, 2026, well before the criminal prosecution commenced on July 30.

The Court acknowledged that Section 75 of the BNSS contemplates, as one of the conditions for issuance of a warrant, that the accused of a non-bailable offence is evading arrest.

However, it rejected the petitioner's argument that insufficient time had been available for the investigating agency or the Magistrate to conclude that he was evading arrest.

The Court observed:

"Such submission made on behalf of petitioner that no reasonable time was accorded to take steps under Section 175 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to come to a finding that petitioner being accused was evading arrest pales into insignificance since admitted fact was petitioner left country on 23rd May, 2026."

The Court noted that had the petitioner been in India, the prescribed exercise would have been required to be undertaken before issuance of the warrant.

The High Court also distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, noting that the issue before the Supreme Court in that case concerned whether a warrant could be issued during investigation for apprehending a person and producing him before the police.

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had held that when a warrant is issued under the relevant provision, the accused is required to be produced before the Magistrate, who would thereafter take a decision under Section 167 of the CrPC.

Justice Bhattacharyya held that the factual situation in the present case was different because the petitioner had admittedly left the country before the criminal prosecution commenced.

"In aforesaid conspectus, Court does not find fault with order dated 30th July, 2026 passed by the court below issuing warrant of arrest against petitioner in order to facilitate investigation in aforesaid criminal prosecution," the Court held.

The Court further observed that once the petitioner did not appear before the Magistrate on August 7, the authorities were entitled to take steps for issuance of a proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS.

While refusing to interfere with the impugned orders, the Court took note of the nature of the alleged recoveries in the case.

The judgment recorded that the report placed before the Court disclosed recovery of cash amounting to Rs. 28,53,47,000 and 15 kg of gold bars suspected to be proceeds of crime, apart from physical and electronic documents allegedly disclosing commission of organised crime and discovery of substantial amounts of money in various bank and other accounts.

"Therefore, Court refuses to interfere with the present revisional application and same stands dismissed," the Court held.

The criminal revision petition was accordingly dismissed. The connected application seeking early hearing was also disposed of.

Case: Md. Nazibuddin @ Tulu Mondal v. The State of West Bengal

Case No.: CRR 3444 of 2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026

Click here to read order