Can Production Warrant Override A Subsisting 'No Coercive Action' Order? Orissa High Court Answers

The Orissa High Court has held that a 'production warrant' under Section 267 of the Code Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be issued against an accused, violating an interim protection order of the higher Court, merely because he is already lodged in the judicial custody in connection with another case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 65]While setting aside production warrant and subsequent police remand order, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed–“In the considered opinion of this Court, once such protection had been granted by this Court and the same continued to remain in force, the learned trial court ought to have exercised due caution while considering the prayer of the Investigating Officer seeking remand of the petitioner in connection with the present case. The materials on record reveal that the aforesaid interim order of this Court had been brought to the notice of the learned trial court.”The petitioner was implicated in a case under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act') on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused. It was alleged that the petitioner supplied ganja to potential drug dealers. Accordingly, he was arrayed as an accused in connection with T.R. Case No.34 of 2021.The wife of the petitioner gave a grievance complaint to the Superintendent of Police stating that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. A detailed inquiry was carried out by the Superintendent of Police who arrived at a conclusion that 8 cases have been falsely registered against the petitioner on the basis of only the confessional statement of the co-accused sans any other materials.On the basis of such inquiry report, the petitioner had earlier filed another application under Section 482, CrPC/Section 528, BNSS seeking to quash his impleadment. While hearing the plea, the Court had on 23.12.2024 granted him interim protection from any “coercive action” in relation to the case. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in connection with another case, i.e. T.R. Case No.32 of 2025. While he was in custody in connection with the latter case, the Investigating Officer in the earlier case (T.R. Case No.34 of 2021) made a prayer to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore for issuance of production warrant against the petitioner. The Judge issued an order dated 07.02.2026, exercising his power under Section 267, CrPC, directed production of the petitioner before the Court on 10.02.2026, on which date he was remanded to the police custody. Aggrieved by issuance of such production warrant and remand order despite the stay order of the High Court, the petitioner filed this petition under Section 482, CrPC/ Section 528, BNSS.The petitioner contended that the police or the Sessions Court cannot override a valid stay order passed by the High Court and, if such arrest/production or remand is effected, the same may constitute contempt of court and violation of personal liberty.The State argued that if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case, the police can seek detention of the accused in police custody in another case for the purpose of investigation of such case. Therefore, re-arrest or second arrest in a different case is perfectly legal.The Court, at the outset, examined the true purport of the order of the High Court dated 23.12.2024 whereby the petitioner was granted interim protection. It held the expression “no coercive action” employed by the Court was intended to protect the liberty of the petitioner during pendency of the proceeding.It noted that while the petitioner was lodged in judicial custody in connection with another case, the Investigating Officer prayed for his production and remand in the earlier case where interim protection/stay was granted in his favour. Therefore, it held –“The contention advanced on behalf of the opposite party that the petitioner was not formally arrested but was merely produced from judicial custody pursuant to production warrant issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned orders ultimately resulted in police remand of the petitioner in connection with the present case notwithstanding the subsisting interim protection granted by this Court.”Citing the law settled through CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992), the State attempted to justify the remand by arguing that police custody in another case is permissible even where the accused is already in judicial custody. While not disputing the aforesaid settled position, Justice Panigrahi was of the considered view that the peculiar feature of the present case, i.e. the subsistence of the interim protection granted by the High Court, shall be a relevant factor to assess legality of the remand order.“This Court is also of the view that once the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by this Court was brought to the notice of the learned trial court, the appropriate...

Can Production Warrant Override A Subsisting 'No Coercive Action' Order? Orissa High Court Answers

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Can Production Warrant Override A Subsisting 'No Coercive Action' Order? Orissa High Court Answers

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers