Oral:

1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing the order dated 11.09.2025 and 11.12.2025 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kanchanpur, North Tripura in connection with case No. PRC (SP) 18/2023 and subsequent order dated 03.12.2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with case No. Crl. Rev. Petn. 14/2025.

2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Ratan Datta, along with Learned Counsel Mr. Ankan Tilak Paul and Mr. Aditya Baidya, appearing on behalf of the petitioner accused persons and also heard Mr. Raju Datta, Learned PP appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner accused persons first of all drawn the attention of the Court that on the basis of an FIR laid by one Ms. Rebec Rungsouhti Reang, W/o Ms. Nishant Mishra, D/o Mr. Lalruata Reang, Vill-Kakchang Para W-1.CCRF, P.O. Anandabazar, P.S. Anandabazar, Sub-Division-Kanchanpur, Dist.- North Tripura the case was registered against the present petitioner accused persons by O/C Anandabazar P.S. under Section 120B/312/420/498/499/34 of IPC and after completion of investigation the IO laid charge-sheet against the present petitioner accused persons namely, 1.Sri Nishant Misra 2.Sri Ram Balak Mishra 3. Smt. Sabita Mishra under Section 120B/417/499/34 of IPC and accordingly cognizance was taken by the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and now the case has been posted for recording evidence of prosecution witnesses.

4. Learned Counsel further submitted that the accused persons belongs to the resident of Bodhgaya, Bihar, so it was not possible on their part to appear before the Learned Trial Court in each of the dates, so they have engaged their counsel to conduct their defence who represented them before the concerned Court of the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and in their absence petition was moved on their behalf under Section 355 of BNSS but the Jurisdictional Magistrate did not consider the same.

5. However, by order dated 11.09.2025 non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the present petitioner accused persons by the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate.

6. Learned Counsel further submitted that out of nine numbers of witnesses prosecution could not examine any witness before the Learned Trial Court till today and as the accused persons remained absent, so Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate drawn up proceeding against the surety under Section 446 of Cr.P.C and challenging that order the surety moved an application before the Court of Learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, Learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 03.12.2025 allowed the application filed by the surety and on the same date in Crl. Rev. No. 13/2025 dismissed the application of the petitioner accused persons, as the said petitioner accused persons earlier moved another criminal revision bearing No.7/2025 which was allowed by the Learned Session Judge with specific direction to remain present before the Learned Trail Court during recording of evidence but the petitioners did not surrender, resulting which Learned Session Judge by the said order dated 03.12.2025 rejected the application filed by the present petitioner accused persons. However, finally by order dated 11.12.2025 learned Jurisdictional Magistrate again passed an order for issuing non- bailable warrant of arrest against the present petitioner accused persons and fixed the dates of this case with effect from 28.01.2026 to 30.01.2026 for examination of prosecution witnesses.

7. Learned Counsel again submitted that admittedly in some of the occasions the petitioner accused persons could not appear before the court as because they are the residents of Bihar, so they have appeared through their engaged Learned Counsel applying the provision of Section 355 of BNSS but that was not considered by the Learned Trial Court. Learned Counsel also submitted that the accused persons have/had no intention to get the trial of this case delayed but the Learned Trial Court issued warrant of arrest against them and if at this stage the order of warrant is not stayed and the accused persons are not released on bail then they will be seriously prejudiced. So, they have urged before this Court for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to allow them to go on bail.

8. On the other hand, Learned PP Mr. Datta, appearing on behalf of the State-respondent strongly opposed the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner accused persons and submitted that from the documents annexed with the petition it transpires that due to non-cooperation of the petitioner accused persons, Learned Trial Court could not proceed with the case and in this case the identification of the accused persons are involved but as they remained absent so although the witnesses turned up but their evidences could not be recorded and these present petitioner accused persons twice approached before the Court of Sessions but their petitions were rejected by the Learned Sessions Judge and in spite of direction of the Learned Sessions Judge they did not appear/surrender before the Learned Trial Court, so, Learned PP urged before this Court for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner accused persons under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

9. However, at the time of hearing Learned counsel Mr. R Datta, appearing on behalf of the petitioner accused persons drawn the attention of this Court referring an order dated 23.03.2020 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in Crl. Petn. No.12/2020 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court opined that issuance of non bailable warrant of arrest against the accused persons was not justified and accordingly, quashed the order of the Learned Trial Court.

10. Reliance was placed upon another citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2024) 14 SCC 122 titled as Sharif Ahmed & Anr vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. wherein in Para No. 78 & 79 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

               “78. We, however, would allow the present appeal to the extent that the non-bailable warrants issued against Manager Singh are unsustainable and should be quashed. It is a settled position of law that non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless necessitated by the larger interest of public and the State. While there are no comprehensive set of guidelines for the issuance of non-bailable warrants, this Court has observed on several occasions that non-bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence.”

               Relying upon the same Learned Counsel submitted that in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the order passed by the Learned Trial Court suffers from infirmities and the same needs to be interfered with.

11. Finally, Learned Counsel relied upon another citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 titled as Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. wherein in Para No.50, 51 & 52 Hon’ble the Apex Court has observed as under:

               “50. Civilised countries have recognised that liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration of Independence, 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen, 1789, Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966 all speak with one voice-liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law.

               51. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non- bailable warrants.

               52. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilised society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period, only then the non- bailable warrants should be issued.”

               Learned Counsel submitted that in the present case the proper procedure of law was not followed by the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and as such the order passed by Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate needs to be interfered with and set aside.

12. I have heard both the sides at length. Here in this case, as already stated, the prosecution was set into motion on the basis of a court complaint laid by the informant Ms. Rebec Rungsouhti Reang who initially submitted one court complaint to the Court of Learned SDJM, Kanchanpur, North Tripura and the same was forwarded to the O/C of concerned PS for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and accordingly the case was registered.

13. The allegation of the informant in the complaint was that on 25.12.2020 she met with the accused No.1 Sri Nishant Mishra who came to visit Jampui Hill when they fall in love with each other and ultimately on the proposal of the said accused she joined her company. After that on 14.02.2021 they came to Kanchanpur and stayed in a guest house and performed marriage in front of the well wishers and a marriage affidavit was executed and thereafter, they went to Gujarat and resumed conjugal life. She became conceived but at the instance of her husband she was aborted. On 04.03.2023 the accused came to Anandabazar with the informant from Gujarat and left her and from there he left towards Bihar and after that he stopped making any sort of contact and after that the principle accused borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from her but failed to repay the amount. Rather, he demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry from her and ultimately stopped contacting with her and in spite of her contact he refused to make any contact with her and denied to have any sort of relation and even he refused to accept her as a wife and under compelling circumstances the victim filed the complaint which was later on registered as FIR.

14. I have seen the orders passed by the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and also the order of Learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. Admittedly, the case is at the stage of trial. It is also admitted position that during trial the identification of the accused is/will be required. So in such a situation the accused persons cannot take the plea that they will not appear before the Court for identification by the informant or any other witnesses of the prosecution, if they are needed to. Further more in criminal trial there is no scope for accused persons to remain absent to the Court on the dates of hearing if their personal appearances are not dispensed with by the order of the Court.

15. Here in this case the charge has already been framed and Learned Trial Court on so many occasions issued summons upon the witnesses but due to non-appearance of the accused persons the Learned Jurisdictional Court could not proceeded further with the case and finally by order dated 11.12.2025 issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against them. More so, on their approach to the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, as already stated, their petition was rejected by the Learned Sessions Judge.

16. From the record further it appears that the case is posted for recording evidence of PWs w.e.f 28.01.2026 to 30.01.2026. By this time Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate also drawn up separate proceeding against the surety under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. which at this stage is not the subject matter of this present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, from the documents annexed with the petition it appears that the present petitioner accused persons on some occasions appeared before the learned Trial Court but it is also on record that they failed to appear before the Learned Trial Court on the dates fixed as a result of which for want of identification the evidence of prosecution witnesses could not be recorded by the Learned Trial Court.

17. It is also equally true that if the accused persons do not co-operate with the Learned Trial Court in that case it would be difficult on the part of the Learned Trial Court to dispose of the case in accordance with law within time.

18. From the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Learned Trial Court it appears that by the said order Learned Trial Court issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the accused persons and also at the same time passed an order for issuing summons upon the witnesses of the prosecution which is not at all permissible because when the order was passed by the Learned Trial Court on 11.12.2025, it was not possible on the part of Learned Trial Court to determine as to whether the warrant of arrest issued would be executed or not, on or before the next date fixed on 28.01.2026 to 30.01.2026. So until and unless the appearance of the accused persons or their engaged counsel are ensured, in that case it was not legally permissible on the part of the Learned Trial Court to pass such order for fixing the dates for recording evidence of PWs.

19. Thus it appears to the Court that the order dated 11.12.2025, the order dated 11.09.2025 and also the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge suffers from some infirmity as because the same was not passed in accordance with the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above considering the gravity of the offence. Situated thus, the said impugned orders are partly interfered with.

20. The present petitioner accused persons shall surrender before the Learned Trial Court on or before 28.01.2026 and on that date they shall apply for bail when the Learned Trial Court shall pass an order for releasing the said accused persons on bail of their execution of fresh bail bond subject to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Court, failing which Learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to send them to Judicial Custody.

21. It is also ordered that the petitioner accused persons shall co-operate with the Learned Trial Court to proceed further with the trial. If at any stage it appears to the Learned Trial Court that the present petitioner accused persons are not co- operating with the trial court to proceed with the trial in that case the Learned Trial Court shall have the liberty to henceforth, cancel their bail, if they are not properly represented either by themselves or by their engaged Learned Defense Counsel, and to dispose of the case keeping them in Judicial Custody.

22. It is further directed that all endeavour shall be made by the Learned Trial Court to dispose of the case not later than 30.06.2026. However, it is made clear that this order shall not affect the order of the Learned Trial Court for drawing up of proceeding against the surety under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. as ordered earlier and regarding fixing of dates for recording evidence of PWs. Learned Trial Court shall dispose of that proceeding in accordance with law.

23. In case of non appearance of the witnesses it will be open for the Learned Trial Court to ensure attendance of the witnesses in accordance with law and to dispose of the case within the time fixed by this Court.

24. However, it is made clear that till surrender of the petitioner accused persons before the Learned Trial Court no coercive action be taken against the accused persons on the basis of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against them. Only, in the event of their surrender the warrants issued against them be re-called. Further, if they do not surrender in that case warrants issued shall remain valid for execution by the Executing Authority.

With these observations this present petition stands disposed of.

Send down a copy of this order to Learned Trial Court immediately for information and compliance.

A copy of this order also be supplied to Learned Counsel for the petitioners for information and compliance. Also a copy of this order be supplied to Learned PP with a request to forward the same to the IO of this case through O/C of the concerned PS.