Court Should Issue Notice To Bailer Or Bailable Warrant Against Accused Before Issuing NBW For Non Appearance: Orissa High Court
The petitioner had approached the Orissa High Court challenging an order whereby NBWs were directed to be issued against the accused persons.
Justice G. Satapathy, Orissa High Court
While quashing an order directing the issuance of NBW (Non Bailable Warrant) against an accused person, the Orissa High Court has held that the Magistrate or the concerned Court may either issue notice to the bailer or issue BW (Bailable Warrant) against the accused person, who has not appeared before it after receiving the summons/notice.
The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging an order whereby NBWs were directed to be issued against the accused persons.
The Single Bench of Justice G. Satapathy held, “In the present case, the accused petitioner-Trinath Guru was on bail being granted to him on 23.12.2025 and the petitioner has availed such bail by furnishing the bail bonds, however, the impugned order does not disclose what was the necessity to issue NBWA against the petitioner. In a situation like this, the Magistrate or the concerned Court may either issue notice to the bailer(s) or issue BW against the accused person, who has not appeared before it after receiving the summon/notice, but instead of resorting to said procedure, the learned JMFC, Lakhanpur has straight away issued NBWA against the petitioner Trinath Guru and others.”
“Additionally, the impugned order does not reveal about issuance of notice to the bailer(s). In the aforesaid facts and situation and taking into account the ramification of the impugned order and to secure the ends of the justice and to give effect to the order of the Court, this Court considers that the impugned order does not stands to the legal scrutiny and is liable to be quashed”, it added.
Advocate K. Rashid represented the Petitioner Addl. Public Prosecutor A. Mohanty represented the Respondent.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that on the date fixed for the appearance of the petitioner, he was found absent on repeated calls and, accordingly, NBW was issued against the petitioner.
The Bench explained that Section 355 of the BNSS confers wide discretion on the Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused even on the date fixed for holding inquiry or trial, but issuance of NBW against accused is not mandatory, even he is not present on the date fixed for the aforesaid purposes and it is the discretion of the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence and he may at any subsequent stage of the proceeding directs the personal attendance of such accused.
“Besides, Section 482(3) of BNSS provides that if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should be issued in the first instance against that accused person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section-1 to Section 482 of BNSS”, it added.
The Bench noted that the accused petitioner, Trinath Guru, was on bail, and he had availed bail by furnishing the bail bonds, however, the impugned order did not disclose the necessity to issue NBW against the petitioner. Further considering that the impugned order did not reveal the issuance of notice to the bailers, the Bench quashed the impugned order qua the petitioner. “...the petitioner is allowed to continue his previous bail, but he has to regularize the proceeding by appearing before the Court on the next date fixed for it”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Trinath Guru and another v. State of Orissa (Case No.: CRLMC No.1806 of 2026)