Non-Bailable Warrants Under Section 90 BNSS Cannot Be Issued Mechanically Without Recording Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants." High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a ruling dated September 17, 2026, held that the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) is a serious coercive measure that directly impacts an individual's personal liberty and cannot be resorted to in a mechanical or routine manner.

A bench of Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam emphasized that under Section 90 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, courts are mandatorily required to record reasons in writing before resorting to the issuance of an arrest warrant.

The petitioner, a 70-year-old businessman, challenged a docket order issued by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthi, in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court had issued an NBW against the petitioner, who contended that the notice was sent to an incorrect address in Andhra Pradesh despite him being a permanent resident of Karnataka. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the recall of the warrant, alleging that the lower court had failed to follow due process.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the issuance of an NBW without the prior issuance of summons or bailable warrants, and without recording specific reasons for such a drastic measure, is legally sustainable. The Court also examined the scope of judicial discretion under the BNSS framework in relation to the personal liberty of an accused.

NBWs Are Not Meant For Punishment

The Court observed that the power to issue an NBW is intended solely to secure the presence of the accused in court and not as a tool for punishment. The bench highlighted that under Section 91 of the BNSS, the court is empowered to take bonds or bail bonds to ensure appearance, which is a less intrusive alternative that must be considered before escalating to an arrest warrant.

Court Reiterates Necessity Of Procedural Hierarchy

The High Court reaffirmed the established legal position that courts should follow a hierarchical approach to ensure the appearance of an accused. The preferred sequence is the service of summons, followed by the issuance of bailable warrants, and only as a last resort, the issuance of non-bailable warrants when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is intentionally evading the process of law.

"The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind."

Mandatory Requirement To Record Reasons

The Court held that the statutory mandate under Section 90 of the BNSS, which requires the recording of reasons in writing, is not an empty formality. It serves as a vital safeguard against arbitrary judicial action and ensures transparency and accountability. The failure to disclose the rationale behind issuing an NBW renders the order legally unsustainable as it precludes effective judicial review.

Court Emphasizes Duty Of Judicial Officers

The bench underscored that while courts possess the authority to issue warrants, such discretion must be exercised with caution and "vigilant circumspection." Judicial functions are not purely administrative; they require a sensitive application of mind, particularly when a decision threatens to curtail the constitutional right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"Any order affecting the rights of a person and particularly his liberty, must be with reasons and must reflect due application of mind."

Finding that the trial court had acted mechanically and failed to consider the petitioner's address details and the absence of recorded reasons, the High Court set aside the impugned docket order. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court within two weeks and ordered that he must continue to appear in subsequent proceedings unless his personal presence is specifically dispensed with by the trial judge.

The ruling serves as a stern reminder to trial courts that the power of arrest is a "sober duty" that must be exercised judiciously. By enforcing the requirement to record reasons and follow the procedural hierarchy for securing an accused's presence, the High Court has reinforced the protection of personal liberty against arbitrary judicial processes.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2026