"Warrant of Arrest Not Illegal If Accused Does Not Seek Bail or Respond Post-Charge Sheet" — Calcutta High Court Rejects Plea Against Arrest Warrant in Real Estate Fraud Case

“Mere compliance with Section 179 BNSS does not immunize the accused from arrest if he fails to appear or seek bail post chargesheet” — Calcutta High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a real estate developer, Sourpya Dasgupta, who had challenged an order dated 29th July 2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta, issuing a warrant of arrest against him in connection with a forgery and cheating case under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that issuance of arrest warrant was legally justified, especially in light of the fact that the petitioner never applied for anticipatory or regular bail, and that his alleged cooperation during preliminary investigation could not nullify the effect of being unavailable post chargesheet

“Forgery in Inspection Book Can Only Be Decided in Trial” — Court Declines to Quash Arrest Warrant Amid Serious Allegations of Construction Fraud

The case arises out of New Market Police Station Case No. 42/2025 dated 11.2.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 316(4), 338, 340(2), 339, and 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023, involving alleged forgery of municipal inspection books to fraudulently obtain building sanction for a five-storied construction in Kolkata.

The complaint filed by Sayanta Das alleged that despite the road being only 16 feet wide, which permitted only a three-storey building under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, a five-storey building was approved based on forged records showing tenancy that did not exist. Specifically, the forged entry concerned a fictional tenant “Joy Shah”, whose name appeared in physical records but not in the official scanned inspection books.

The petitioner, Sourpya Dasgupta, a developer operating as “Gautam Heights”, was not named in the original FIR, but was later implicated and charge-sheeted based on investigation and alleged non-cooperation.

“Notice Under Section 179 BNSS Was Complied With, But That Alone Does Not Bar Arrest” — Court Rejects Absconder Argument

The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Phiroze Edulji, argued that the petitioner had complied with a notice issued under Section 179 BNSS (corresponding to Section 160 CrPC), and had also submitted documents to the investigating officer on 25.3.2025.

Despite this, the charge-sheet marked the petitioner as an absconder, and the Magistrate proceeded to issue the arrest warrant on 29.7.2025.

Rejecting the contention that this was unlawful, the High Court clarified:

“Though the petitioner complied with the notice and submitted the documents, it cannot be presumed that when the Investigating Authority made the search, despite his presence in the house, such statement [in the chargesheet] has been made falsely.”

The Court noted that searches were conducted, and the petitioner failed to secure legal protection by applying for bail after chargesheet, thereby giving the Magistrate sufficient reason to treat him as absconding.

"Issuance of Arrest Warrant Involves Personal Liberty, But Must Be Balanced With Non-Compliance After Chargesheet" — High Court Declines to Interfere

In a crucial observation, the Court remarked:

“The issuance of warrant involves interference with the personal liberty and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Accordingly, prayed for setting aside the said order.”

Yet, it concluded:

“Even though the petitioner complied with Section 179 notice in March 2025, the charge-sheet was submitted in July 2025, with a clear gap. The petitioner never applied for bail. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Magistrate.”

The Court also noted an incomplete sentence in the Magistrate’s earlier handwritten order, acknowledging that the Court "was in such a hurry that he failed to complete the sentence," but clarified this was not sufficient to invalidate the warrant.

“Whether Forgery Was Committed Can Only Be Determined at Trial” — Court Refuses to Pre-Judge Charges of Municipal Record Tampering

The Court emphasized that the allegations of tampering with municipal records and wrongful use of Rule 142 of KMC Building Rules raised serious legal and factual questions, but clarified that these must be adjudicated during trial, and not in a revision against procedural orders.

It stated: “Whether there was any offence of forgery committed by the petitioner in the Inspection Book as alleged or not, can only be considered by the Learned Trial Court in course of trial.”

Revisional Powers to Be Used Sparingly — No Grounds Found for Interference

Citing the limited nature of revisional jurisdiction, the Court reiterated that unless there is manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice, the High Court should not interfere with judicial orders of the lower court:

“It is settled now that High Court’s power of revision is of exceptional nature and therefore is to be exercised sparingly since the power is limited.”

In light of these observations, the revisional application was dismissed in full.

Date of Decision: 22nd September 2025