Section 319 CrPC | Pursuing Legal Remedies in Higher Forums Is Not ‘Evasion of Trial’; Custody Not Required for Summoned Accused: Supreme Court

“When the petitioner is pursuing her remedy before the High Court or this Court, her non-appearance before the Trial Court cannot be termed as deliberate or an attempt to evade the trial”— In a seminal ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, has protected the personal liberty of an accused summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), holding that the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) was unjustified merely because the accused was litigating her grievance before superior courts.

A Chequered History of Investigation

The dispute traces its roots to an FIR lodged in March 2014 at Police Station Kharela, District Mahoba, under Sections 302 (Murder) and 307 (Attempt to Murder) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. While the petitioner, Rama Singh, was named in the initial FIR, the police investigation took a different turn. The Investigating Officer opined that the petitioner, along with two others, had been falsely implicated. Consequently, their names were excluded from the charge-sheet.

The Court noted a significant procedural detail: the matter was investigated thrice, and all three Investigating Officers independently concluded that the petitioner was falsely implicated, leading to the filing of a Final Report in her favor. However, once the trial commenced against the charge-sheeted accused and prosecution witnesses were examined, an application under Section 319 CrPC was moved in 2017 to summon the petitioner to face trial. This application was allowed by the Trial Court and subsequently upheld by the Allahabad High Court.

The Legal Battle and Issuance of Warrants

The litigation saw a previous round before the Supreme Court, where the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for reconsideration. In June 2025, the Trial Court once again allowed the Section 319 application, a decision that the High Court affirmed in the impugned judgment dated October 16, 2025.

Senior Advocate Ms. Madhavi Divan, appearing for the petitioner, highlighted a critical procedural grievance. She pointed out that while the petitioner was actively pursuing her statutory remedies before the High Court and the Supreme Court challenging the summoning order, the Trial Court proceeded to issue Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) to secure her presence. This effectively placed the petitioner in a precarious position where exercising her right to appeal was treated as non-cooperation with the trial process.

Section 319 and the Question of Custody

The Supreme Court took a pragmatic view of the intersection between trial procedure and the rights of an accused. The Bench observed that the petitioner’s absence before the Trial Court could not be construed as a deliberate attempt to flee justice when she was bona fide pursuing legal remedies before superior forums.

Furthermore, the Court laid down a crucial principle regarding the nature of custody for persons summoned under Section 319 CrPC. The Bench reasoned that the very fact that an accused is summoned under this section implies that the investigation is complete and the police did not require them for investigation earlier. Therefore, “she is not required for custodial interrogation.” The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by incarcerating the petitioner during a "protracted trial," especially when the police had repeatedly found her innocent during the investigation stage.

Addressing the merits of the case, the Supreme Court declined to quash the summoning order entirely, noting that the contentious issues raised by the defence were arguable points to be determined during the trial. However, to ensure a fair trial, the Bench clarified that the observations made by the Trial Court and High Court in the summoning orders were strictly limited to the purpose of Section 319 CrPC. These observations are “not to be construed as findings of fact” and should not prejudice the petitioner or her co-accused during the final adjudication.

Disposing of the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court granted significant relief regarding the petitioner's liberty. The Court ordered the Non-Bailable Warrants to be kept in abeyance. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks and furnish bail bonds. Upon compliance, the Trial Court was mandatorily directed to admit her to bail and recall the warrants as infructuous. The petitioner was granted the liberty to raise all her contentions as defence pleas at the appropriate stage of the trial.

Date of Decision: 17-11-2025