2020 (1) TMI 1531 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking issuance of warrant of arrest - invocation of provisions of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - In view of the law settled in Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal Ors. 2007 (10) TMI 550 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Apex Court that at the first instance if the court is satisfied it would issue bailable warrant, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued the warrant of arrest without specifying the same either to be bailable or non-bailable. In view of the contentions so advanced by the petitioner so far as the merits of the case is concerned as well as the warrant of arrest so issued, prima facie the revisional application requires to be heard on merits. The petitioner is directed to effect service upon the State of West Bengal through the office of the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta and upon the opposite party no.2 at its office address by hand service and also by speed post with acknowledgement due and file affidavit of service on the next date fixed for hearing - Let the matter appear under the heading Contested Application after six weeks.

Summary

Issues:
1. Sufficiency of time for appearance in court from a distant location.
2. Issuance of warrant of arrest without specifying bailable or non-bailable nature.
3. Stay on further proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the insufficient time provided for appearance in court from Delhi to Calcutta, highlighting that the summons were received on the dates fixed for appearance. Despite intimations sent to the complainant's office, a complaint was filed, initially requesting a warrant of arrest. Citing the precedent set in Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., the court noted the need to hear the revisional application on its merits due to the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the case's merits and the warrant of arrest issued.

2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a warrant of arrest without specifying whether it was bailable or non-bailable, following a prayer from the complainant. The court acknowledged the legal principle that, if satisfied, the court should issue a bailable warrant in the first instance. Given the arguments presented by the petitioner concerning the case's merits and the warrant of arrest, the revisional application was deemed to require a detailed hearing on its merits.

3. In light of the above issues, the court directed the petitioner to serve the State of West Bengal through the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta, and the opposite party, ensuring service by hand and speed post with acknowledgment due. Additionally, all further proceedings related to complaint case no. C-1745 of 2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24 Parganas, were stayed for a period of eight weeks. The matter was scheduled to appear under the heading "Contested Application" after six weeks for further proceedings.