SUNPAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was filed invoking the inherent power under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), to quash an Order dated 23.10.2014 issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioners, passed in Crime No.236/2014, by the XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bengaluru.

(2.) Relevant facts to decide this petition are that case in Crime No.236/2014 was registered on 12.07.2014 by the Police Inspector, CCB, (Spl. Enquiries), N.T. Pete, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under S. 34 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, Ss.79 and 80 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and S.20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioners and six others, who were arrested, were released on bail by the Court below. Investigation of the case has not been completed and final report under S.173 of the Code has not been submitted. Petitioner Nos.1 to 26, 28 to 31 and 35 to 54, who have been arraigned as accused Nos. 2 to 20, 22 to 27, 29, 31 to 34, 38 to 52 and 54 to 58, are the residents of the State of Gujarat. Petitioner Nos.27, 32, 33, 34 and 55, who have been arraigned as accused Nos.30, 35, 36, 37 and 59, are the residents of the State of Rajasthan. After release of all the accused, on bail, the Court below adjourned the case to 23.10.2014. Accused Nos.28, 60 and 62 having appeared and accused Nos.1, 21 and 53 having filed application, exemption was granted to them on 23.10.2014. The petitioners, who are the remaining accused, being absent and exemption application having not been filed on their behalf, 'non-bailable warrants' having been ordered to be issued to arrest and produce them, this petition was filed.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that though the crime is registered, charge-sheet having not been submitted and when they have been released on bail, there is no necessity for their appearance in the Court, i.e., before filing of the charge-sheet. Petitioners contend that it is only after submission of the charge-sheet and when cognizance is taken and process is issued, there is need for their appearance in the Court. Mr. Amar Correa, learned advocate, vehemently contended that the issuing of nonbailable warrants, even before the final report is filed is contrary to law. He submitted that there being violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, interference with the impugned order is called for.