Section 75 BNSS Empowers A Magistrate To Issue Arrest Warrant Even During Investigation Against Accused Evading Arrest: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court observed that Section 75 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) empowers a Magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest against an accused who is alleged to have committed an offence that is non-bailable and is evading his arrest, even during the course of investigation.

A Writ Petition was filed to quash the order of issue of arrest warrant against the Petitioner in an alleged liquor scam case in the State of Chandigarh, set aside the consequential proceedings, and declare the arrest of the Petitioner bad in law.

The Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “When the petitioner is named in the FIR, it was for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the competent jurisdictional Court at an appropriate stage, and when the respondent authorities were seeking his appearance for investigation, the petitioner was not turning up and in such circumstances, there was no other option for the Investigating Officer but to pray before the learned trial Court for issuance of a warrant of arrest. Further, even if the Investigating Officer did not summon the petitioner for a long time, it would not automatically absolve him from the liability of cooperating with the investigation. The petitioner himself could have approached the Investigating Officer concerned and explained his stand/situation which has not been done, neither the petitioner has taken recourse to any competent jurisdictional Court seeking any protective order in his favour. It transpires that as the Investigation proceeded, the involvement of the petitioner was found and he was being searched but the petitioner could not be traced.”

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora represented the Petitioner, while Advocates Vivek Sharma and Sourabh Kunar Pande represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The Petitioner is a businessman, based in Chhattisgarh. On the basis of a Look Out Circular as issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), the Petitioner was arrested from Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, when he was allegedly on his way to Brazil along with his family for a business trip.

The Petitioner has been accused of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which are non-bailable offences. Further, a lookout notice was already issued against the Petitioner by the ED in relation to some Mahadev Betting App scam.

The Petitioner contended that he was neither shown the warrant of arrest nor substance was communicated to him when he was apprehended at Gurugram by the Officers and such a failure on the part of State is in the teeth of the mandate of Section 75 of the BNSS. It was also contended that the Petitioner was named only in the FIR lodged but he has not been named as an accused in three charge sheets filed by Police.

Court's Analysis

The Court opined that the conduct of the Petitioner is of much importance. The trial Court had directed for issuance of warrant of arrest against the Petitioner on May 16, 2025 and the Petitioner planned to go abroad on May 30, 2025 which prima facie shows that the Petitioner was aware that he could be arrested at any point of time and by leaving the country, he was trying to evade his arrest and had no intentions to cooperate with the investigation and he is named in the FIR.

The Bench observed that as the investigation proceeded, the involvement of the Petitioner was found and he was being searched but the Petitioner could not be traced.

“Even as per the own averments of the petitioner, he alongwith his family were trying to go abroad i.e. Brazil and when a case of such nature is pending investigation, the authorities could not have let him go and as such, his arrest cannot be said to be illegal”, the Court added.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed, with the liberty to Petitioner to seek remedy for regular bail.

Cause Title: Vijay Kumar Bhatia V. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:27960-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, Advocates Harshwardhan Parganiha and Mayank.

Respondents: Advocate Vivek Sharma for Respondent No. 1 and Advocate Sourabh Kumar Pande for Respondent No. 2.

Click here to read/download Judgement.