Open Defiance of Process by Breaking the Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash NBWs and Proclamation Against Rape Accused

“Power to Issue Non-Bailable Warrants Is Not Limited to Trial Stage” –  In a firm pronouncement on the scope of coercive powers during investigation, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition challenging arrest warrants and proclamation proceedings issued against an accused in an FIR under Sections 376, 420 and 506 IPC.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya upheld the orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala, issuing arrest warrants on 05.09.2025, non-bailable warrants on 11.09.2025, proclamation under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on 06.10.2025, and declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person on 20.12.2025.

The Court concluded that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to “open defiance of the process by breaking the law,” and that coercive steps were justified to secure his presence.

Arrest, Alleged Escape from Custody and Flight Abroad

The FIR was lodged on the complaint of the petitioner’s wife alleging rape, physical exploitation and enticement. The petitioner claimed that an earlier inquiry had found no cognizable offence and alleged political vendetta behind the case.

However, it was undisputed that after registration of the FIR on 01.09.2025, the petitioner was arrested on 02.09.2025 at Karnal. The police alleged that during arrest he “attacked the police party and forcibly snatched the police file… and escaped from custody.” A separate FIR under Sections 121(1), 132, 221, 263 and 304 BNS was registered in that regard.

On the police application stating that the accused had absconded and fled outside Punjab, the Magistrate issued arrest warrants and later non-bailable warrants. When the warrants remained unexecuted, proclamation proceedings were initiated under Section 84 BNSS.

The proclamation was published, statement of the serving constable was recorded, and after expiry of the mandatory thirty-day period, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. Proceedings under Section 85 BNSS were also initiated.

“Magistrate’s Authority Extends to Securing Attendance During Investigation”

The central argument advanced by the petitioner was that arrest warrants cannot be issued during investigation in a cognizable offence, and that such warrants were issued merely to aid the police.

Rejecting this submission, the High Court held that the power to issue non-bailable warrants is not confined to the post-cognizance or trial stage.

Relying upon State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Shravan Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court reiterated:

“The authority of the Magistrate to issue an NBW is not limited to the post cognizance or trial stage; it explicitly extends to securing the attendance of the accused even while the matter is under investigation.”

The Court emphasised that where an accused deliberately evades arrest and refuses to cooperate, the Magistrate’s power under Section 73 CrPC, as recognised in precedent, operates as an ancillary power to aid the administration of criminal justice.

Describing the petitioner’s conduct in strong terms, the Court observed:

“This is a case of open defiance of the process by breaking the law.”

The reliance placed on Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal was distinguished, the Court clarifying that the caution against misuse of non-bailable warrants was in the context of civil or trivial matters, not serious and heinous offences such as rape coupled with escape from custody.

“Statement of Serving Constable Is Conclusive Evidence” – Section 84 BNSS Complied With

The petitioner also argued that the mandatory procedure under Section 84 BNSS was not followed and that he could not be treated as absconding because his anticipatory bail petition was pending and he was residing abroad.

The High Court found no merit in these contentions.

It recorded that the proclamation was duly published, the statement of the serving constable was recorded, and the mandatory thirty-day period had expired before declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person.

The Court held that the fact of publication in the prescribed manner, once established and recorded, constitutes “conclusive evidence under Section 84(3) BNSS that requirements of the Section have been complied with.”

The pendency of anticipatory bail did not prevent issuance of warrants or proclamation where the accused had escaped custody and was evading investigation.

Coercive Process Not Harassment in Serious Offences

Addressing the argument that issuance of warrants amounted to harassment, the Court categorically rejected the same.

“Issuance of arrest warrants against him, therefore, cannot be termed a measure of harassment; rather, it was justified to secure his presence for investigation.”

The Court noted that the petitioner was accused of serious and heinous offences and had allegedly slipped out of the country despite coercive measures. In such circumstances, the criminal justice system cannot be rendered helpless.

Petition Dismissed, Proclamation Upheld

Finding that due procedure was followed at every stage and that the petitioner had deliberately evaded the process of law, the High Court dismissed the petition.

The judgment stands as a clear reaffirmation that non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings are legitimate judicial tools to secure the presence of an absconding accused, and that Magistrates are not powerless during investigation when faced with deliberate defiance of law.

Date of Decision: 28 January 2026