Cancelation of Warrant in the Absence of Accused

Cancelation of Warrant in the Absence of Accused

Section 72 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973

Section 72 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

72. Form of warrant of arrest and duration.

(1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this Sanhita shall be in writing, signed by the presiding officer of such Court and shall bear the seal of the Court.

(2) Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.

Is it possible in India? Cancelation of Warrant in the Absence of Accused

Yes, it is possible in India to cancel a warrant, including a non-bailable warrant (NBW), in the absence of the accused under certain circumstances, as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and judicial precedents. Below is a detailed explanation addressing your query, including legal provisions, judicial interpretations, and practical considerations.

Legal Framework for Cancellation of Warrants in India

1. Relevant Provisions:
   • Section 70(2), CrPC, 1973 (now Section 72(2), BNSS, 2023):

     “Every warrant issued under this section shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.”

     • This provision empowers the court that issued the warrant to cancel it, without explicitly mandating the accused’s presence.
   • Section 482, CrPC, 1973 (now Section 528, BNSS, 2023):
     • The High Court has inherent powers to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, which can include quashing or recalling a warrant.
   • Section 205, CrPC, 1973 (now Section 229, BNSS, 2023):
     • This allows courts to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused in certain cases, enabling their counsel to represent them, including for applications like warrant cancellation.
   • Section 317, CrPC, 1973 (now Section 356, BNSS, 2023):
     • Permits the court to proceed in the absence of the accused if their personal attendance is dispensed with, provided they are represented by a pleader.
2. Judicial Precedents:
   • Telangana High Court (2024): In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court held that the accused need not be personally present for the cancellation of a non-bailable warrant (NBW). The presence of their counsel is sufficient to move an application for recall, and the court should consider it on merits. The court quashed an NBW based on a medical certificate justifying the accused’s absence, emphasizing that personal appearance is not mandatory.
   • Bombay High Court (2019): In Arun Kumar Chaturvedi v. State, the court ruled that there is no legal requirement for the accused to be personally present for the cancellation of a warrant. The magistrate must consider the application on its merits, even if filed by the accused’s counsel, and should not reject it solely due to the accused’s absence. The court criticized lower courts for mechanically insisting on personal appearance.
   • Supreme Court Observations: The Supreme Court has cautioned that NBWs should be issued sparingly, only in cases of heinous crimes or where the accused is likely to evade justice or tamper with evidence (Sharif Ahmed & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2024). Courts are encouraged to consider valid reasons for absence (e.g., medical emergencies, personal hardships) when deciding on cancellation.
   • Rajasthan High Court: The court emphasized that courts should not hastily issue NBWs or proceed under Sections 82/83 (proclamation and attachment) without evidence that the accused is intentionally absconding. This supports the possibility of canceling warrants without the accused’s presence if valid reasons are provided.

Conditions for Cancellation in the Absence of the Accused

Courts in India may cancel a warrant in the absence of the accused if the following conditions are met:

1. Application by Counsel:
   • The accused’s lawyer can file an application for cancellation under Section 70(2), CrPC (or Section 72(2), BNSS), citing valid reasons for non-appearance (e.g., medical emergencies, personal hardships, or administrative errors like improper service of summons).
   • Supporting documents, such as medical certificates, affidavits, or proof of unavoidable circumstances, strengthen the case.
2. Valid Reasons for Absence:
   • Courts are more likely to cancel a warrant if the absence was unintentional or due to genuine reasons, such as:
     • Medical emergencies (e.g., hospitalization, serious illness).
     • Personal hardships (e.g., death in the family, natural calamities).
     • Technical issues (e.g., improper service of summons or lack of notice).
     • Bonafide intentions: Demonstrating willingness to comply with future court proceedings.
3. Undertaking to Appear:
   • The accused or their counsel may need to provide an undertaking assuring future compliance with court appearances. Courts often cancel warrants if such assurances are given.
4. No Intent to Evade Justice:
   • The court must be satisfied that the accused is not deliberately absconding or evading the legal process. For instance, the Rajasthan High Court has clarified that mere non-appearance does not suffice to presume absconding unless there’s evidence of intentional avoidance.
5. Merit-Based Consideration:
   • Courts are directed to evaluate the cancellation application on its merits, without insisting on the accused’s physical presence, as long as their counsel adequately represents them.

Procedure for Cancellation in the Absence of the Accused

1. Filing the Petition:
   • The accused’s lawyer files a petition in the court that issued the warrant, under Section 70(2), CrPC (or Section 72(2), BNSS), requesting cancellation.
   • The petition should detail the reasons for non-appearance, supported by evidence (e.g., medical certificates, travel documents, etc.).
2. Hearing:
   • The court schedules a hearing where the lawyer presents the case. The accused’s presence is not mandatory if the court allows representation by counsel.
3. Court’s Discretion:
   • The court evaluates the reasons for absence and may cancel the warrant if satisfied. It may impose conditions, such as:
     • An undertaking to appear at future hearings.
     • Payment of reasonable costs (e.g., for police efforts in executing the warrant).
     • Furnishing bonds or sureties to ensure compliance.
4. Alternative Remedies:
   • If the lower court rejects the cancellation plea, the accused can approach the High Court under Section 482, CrPC (or Section 528, BNSS) to seek quashing of the warrant, especially if it was issued without just cause or due to procedural errors.

Practical Considerations

• Role of Legal Representation: Engaging an experienced lawyer is critical. The lawyer can draft and file the application, represent the accused in court, and ensure procedural compliance.
• Judicial Discretion: Courts exercise discretion based on the facts of the case. For instance, in cheque bounce cases under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, courts are more lenient if the absence was due to genuine reasons and the accused shows intent to comply.
• Preventive Measures: To avoid NBWs, the accused can file for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205, CrPC (or Section 229, BNSS) or seek condonation of absence under Section 317, CrPC (or Section 356, BNSS) before a warrant is issued.

Limitations and Challenges

• Court’s Insistence on Presence: Some lower courts may still insist on the accused’s personal appearance, despite judicial precedents allowing cancellation in their absence. This practice has been criticized by higher courts.
• Nature of Offense: Courts are less likely to cancel NBWs without the accused’s presence in serious cases (e.g., heinous crimes) where there’s evidence of the accused being a flight risk or tampering with evidence.
• Risk of Arrest: If the NBW is not canceled and the accused appears in court without prior cancellation, they risk arrest unless the court grants immediate relief.

In India, under the BNSS, 2023 (previously CrPC, 1973), it is legally possible to cancel a warrant, including a non-bailable warrant, in the absence of the accused, provided their counsel files an application with valid reasons (e.g., medical emergencies, personal hardships, or technical errors) and demonstrates bonafide intentions to comply with future court proceedings. Judicial precedents, particularly from the Telangana and Bombay High Courts, affirm that courts should consider such applications on merit without mandating personal appearance. The key is to act promptly, engage competent legal representation, and provide strong evidence to justify the absence.

It is possible in India for a court to cancel a warrant even in the absence of the accused, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The power to recall or cancel a warrant lies with the court that issued it, and such applications can be made through a legal representative without requiring the personal presence of the accused in every situation.

Legal Principles

• Court Discretion: The court has the discretion under Section 70(2) of the CrPC to cancel a warrant at any time before execution, either on its own motion or upon an application by or on behalf of the accused, provided sufficient reasons or assurances are given regarding future appearance.

• No Absolute Requirement for Personal Presence: High Courts have clarified that there is no explicit statutory requirement for the accused to be personally present for the cancellation of a warrant. If the lawyer for the accused applies for cancellation, the Magistrate should consider the application on its merits, without insisting on the accused’s presence.

• Judicial Precedent: The Bombay High Court in “Arunkumar N. Chaturvedi v. State of Maharashtra” confirmed that many Magistrates wrongly require physical appearance for warrant cancellation and stated it is sufficient if a lawyer moves the application and the court is satisfied regarding future compliance.

Practical Steps

• A criminal lawyer may apply for cancellation of the warrant and provide valid reasons for the accused’s absence (medical issues, unavoidable circumstances, etc.), along with assurances of future court attendance.

• The court may cancel the warrant, require an undertaking, or impose additional conditions, such as the accused appearing on a subsequent date.

• If the application is rejected at the trial court, remedies are available in the High Court under its inherent powers.

Key Points

• The court’s decision is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously with regard to the conduct of the accused and the case’s circumstances.

• Mere absence does not automatically result in cancellation; the court seeks assurance or justification for non-appearance.

• Cancellation of a warrant can occur without personal appearance if justified and moved through legal counsel, supported by several High Court rulings.

Indian courts may cancel an arrest warrant in the absence of the accused if there are valid grounds and appropriate assurances for future compliance, and there is no statutory bar against considering such an application through legal counsel alone.

Cancellation of Warrant in the Absence of the Accused – Is It Possible in India?

Yes, in India, a court can cancel an arrest warrant even if the accused is not present, under certain circumstances. The procedure is governed by both the CrPC, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, depending on which law is applicable.

Cancellation of Warrant — CrPC Perspective

• Section 482 CrPC:
  The High Court or Sessions Court has inherent powers to cancel a warrant if it is satisfied that:

  • The accused is willing to cooperate.

  • The warrant was issued improperly or unnecessarily.

  • The interests of justice demand cancellation.

• Section 73 CrPC:
  Provides the procedure to cancel or suspend a warrant if the accused has been arrested or otherwise secured.

• Section 441/457 CrPC:
  The court may withdraw or set aside a warrant at any stage before its execution.

Even if the accused is not present, courts may entertain applications for cancellation if sufficient reasons are shown, such as illness, consent to appear later, or procedural irregularities.

Cancellation of Warrant — BNSS 2023 Perspective

• Section 72 BNSS specifies the validity of the warrant but does not explicitly mention cancellation procedures.

• However, other provisions analogous to Section 73 of CrPC would empower the court to cancel or suspend warrants.

• The court may act suo motu or on application by the accused’s representative, lawyer, or guardian.

Grounds for Cancellation Without Accused’s Presence:

1. The accused is ill, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to appear.

2. The warrant was issued in error or without proper cause.

3. The accused has furnished surety or otherwise provided assurance to appear.

4. Interim relief is required pending trial proceedings.

5. It serves the interest of justice to withdraw or suspend enforcement.

Procedure:

1. Application is filed before the issuing court or higher court.

2. The reasons for non-presence are explained with supporting documents.

3. The court may issue notice to the prosecution or police.

4. After hearing, the court may:

   • Cancel the warrant outright.

   • Suspend or modify the warrant.

   • Direct personal appearance at a later date.

   • Grant anticipatory bail in related proceedings.

Illustrative Cases:

• Courts have cancelled warrants when:

  • The accused was hospitalized.

  • The accused was abroad with permission.

  • There was procedural irregularity in issuing the warrant.

  • The offence was minor and compromise was possible.

Cancellation of a warrant in the absence of the accused is possible in India, provided the court is convinced that justice will be served by such cancellation. Courts exercise this power cautiously, balancing between enforcement of law and fairness to the accused.

It is possible in India for a court to cancel a warrant in the absence of the accused, but it is not a matter of right and the circumstances are a crucial factor. The process is primarily governed by Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and its equivalent in the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Legal Basis

Section 70(2) of the CrPC, 1973 (now Section 72(2) of the BNSS, 2023) states that a warrant of arrest remains in force until it is either executed or cancelled by the court that issued it. This provision gives the court the power to cancel a warrant at its discretion.

How it Works in Practice

While the law permits cancellation, courts generally prefer that the accused person appears before them to seek the cancellation. The common practice for an accused person against whom a warrant has been issued is to surrender before the court and then file an application for the warrant’s cancellation. The court appreciates this as a sign of cooperation.

However, in certain exceptional circumstances, an application for the cancellation of a warrant can be moved by the accused’s legal counsel even if the accused is not physically present. A court may consider such an application on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific facts and reasons for the accused’s absence.

Key Factors a Court Considers

When deciding whether to cancel a warrant in the absence of the accused, the court will likely consider the following:

• The reason for the accused’s absence: The accused’s counsel must provide a genuine and compelling reason for the non-appearance that led to the warrant’s issuance. This could include a medical emergency, a communication breakdown, or other unavoidable circumstances. The application must be supported by evidence (e.g., a medical certificate).
• The nature of the offense: The court will consider the seriousness of the crime. For minor or bailable offenses, a court might be more lenient in cancelling the warrant without the accused’s presence.
• The accused’s conduct: The court will examine the accused’s previous conduct in the case, such as their history of court attendance and compliance with previous orders.
• The undertaking to appear: The application must include a written undertaking that the accused will appear on all future court dates.
• The accused’s legal representation: The application is typically filed by the accused’s lawyer, who represents them and provides the necessary explanations and assurances to the court.

Recourse if the Trial Court Refuses

If the trial court rejects the application for cancellation of the warrant without the accused’s presence, the accused has legal recourse. They can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (or the corresponding section in the BNSS) to have the warrant quashed, especially if it was issued without proper cause or in violation of legal procedure. The High Court can also be approached for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.

While it is legally possible to cancel a warrant in the absence of the accused, it is a discretionary power of the court exercised only in specific, justified circumstances. The general and most effective procedure remains for the accused to surrender and then seek the warrant’s cancellation.

List of Case Laws in Support of: Cancelation of Warrant in the Absence of Accused

Here is a list of significant case laws supporting the cancellation of warrants in the absence of the accused in India:

1. Arunkumar N. Chaturvedi v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2013)

   • Held that there is no legal mandate for the accused to be personally present before the Magistrate to consider cancellation of a non-bailable warrant. If an advocate applies on behalf of the accused, the Magistrate must consider the application on its merits without insisting on the accused’s presence. This judgment reprimanded Magistrates who rejected cancellation applications solely for absence of the accused.

2. R. Sundar v. Sub Inspector of Police (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court)

   • The court held that the presence of the accused need not be insisted upon during proceedings to recall a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), and that legal representation is sufficient.

3. Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2025)

   • The Court quashed the cancellation of bail and NBW order of an accused who missed one hearing due to ill-health, emphasizing non-bailable warrants should not be issued mechanically and only after considering the accused’s bona fides and reasons for absence.

4. Cases cited in various High Courts and trial courts

   • Courts have reiterated the discretionary power under Section 70 of CrPC for cancelling warrants when valid reasons for absence are provided (e.g., medical reasons, lack of communication). The accused’s legal counsel can represent such applications.

These cases collectively establish that canceling a warrant in the accused’s absence is allowed in Indian criminal law when properly represented and justified. Courts stress prudence and judicial discretion to avoid mechanical issuance or denial of such relief.

Case Laws Supporting Cancellation of Arrest Warrants in the Absence of the Accused

1. Ramesh Kotecha v. State of Maharashtra (2010)

• Court: Bombay High Court

• Key Point: The court emphasized that non-bailable warrants should not be issued if the presence of the accused can be secured. It also held that the magistrate was not justified in not granting exemption to the applicant and not cancelling the non-bailable warrant in his absence.

2. Justice Tahaliyani’s Observations (Bombay High Court)

• Court: Bombay High Court

• Key Point: Justice Tahaliyani clarified that there is no law mandating the personal presence of the accused for the cancellation of a non-bailable warrant. If the advocate is appearing and making the application, the Magistrate is duty-bound to consider it on merits.

3. Application for Cancellation Due to Non-Appearance

• Court: Various

• Key Point: Applications under Section 70(2) of the CrPC can be filed to cancel non-bailable warrants when the accused is unable to appear. The court may consider the reasons for absence and decide on the cancellation accordingly.

4. NBW Cancellation in Absence of Accused

• Court: Various

• Key Point: Courts have held that non-bailable warrants can be cancelled even in the absence of the accused, provided sufficient reasons are presented. The absence of the accused does not automatically preclude the possibility of warrant cancellation.

Below is a list of relevant case laws from Indian courts that support the cancellation of a warrant, including non-bailable warrants (NBWs), in the absence of the accused. These cases emphasize that the accused’s personal presence is not mandatory for the cancellation of a warrant, provided their counsel represents them and valid reasons for non-appearance are presented. The cases are drawn from judicial pronouncements under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and remain relevant under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the CrPC effective July 1, 2024. Each case is summarized with its key findings and relevance to the issue.

List of Case Laws Supporting Cancellation of Warrant in the Absence of Accused

1. Telangana High Court: Crl.P.No.1114 of 2023 in C.C.No.4637 of 2022 (2024)
   • Citation: Not fully reported, but referenced in LiveLaw (2024).
   • Key Facts: The accused sought cancellation of an NBW issued due to non-appearance. The trial court dismissed the petition for cancellation, insisting on the accused’s personal presence. The Telangana High Court intervened, quashing the NBW.
   • Key Finding: The court held that the accused’s presence is not mandatory for the cancellation of an NBW. The presence of the accused’s counsel is sufficient, and the court must consider the application on its merits. In this case, a medical certificate justified the absence, leading to the recall of the NBW.
   • Relevance: This case directly supports the proposition that an NBW can be canceled without the accused’s personal appearance, emphasizing judicial discretion and the role of legal representation.
2. Bombay High Court: Arun Kumar Chaturvedi v. State (2019)
   • Citation: Not fully reported, but referenced in MyNation KnowledgeBase.
   • Key Facts: The accused, involved in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, applied for cancellation of an NBW through their advocate. The magistrate rejected the application, insisting on personal appearance. The Bombay High Court overturned this decision.
   • Key Finding: The court clarified that there is no legal requirement for the accused to be personally present for the cancellation of a warrant. The magistrate must evaluate the application on its merits, and rejecting it solely due to the accused’s absence is incorrect. The court noted that many writ petitions arise due to such erroneous practices by magistrates.
   • Relevance: This case reinforces that courts should not mechanically insist on personal appearance and supports the use of counsel to seek warrant cancellation, particularly in less serious offenses like cheque bounce cases.
3. Supreme Court: Sharif Ahmed & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2024)
   • Citation: Reported in Drishti Judiciary (2024).
   • Key Facts: An NBW was issued after the accused failed to appear despite a bailable warrant. The accused sought quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings, and the Supreme Court addressed the propriety of issuing NBWs.
   • Key Finding: The Supreme Court held that NBWs should be issued sparingly, only in cases of heinous crimes or where there is evidence of the accused evading justice or tampering with evidence. Courts should consider valid reasons for non-appearance (e.g., medical or personal issues) before issuing or refusing to cancel NBWs. The court implied that cancellation applications should be considered on merits, even without the accused’s presence, if supported by valid reasons.
   • Relevance: This case indirectly supports cancellation in the absence of the accused by emphasizing that courts must avoid mechanical issuance of NBWs and consider reasons for absence, which can be presented by counsel.
4. Supreme Court: Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office (2024)
   • Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 2608 of 2024, reported in Fox Mandal (2024).
   • Key Facts: In a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, the accused failed to appear after furnishing bonds, leading to the issuance of an NBW. The Supreme Court set aside the NBW and addressed the practice of taking accused into custody upon appearance.
   • Key Finding: The court ruled that the accused can apply for cancellation of an NBW by providing an undertaking to appear regularly, without requiring their personal presence at the cancellation hearing. The court condemned the practice of insisting on custody and clarified that cancellation applications should not be treated as bail applications, thus not requiring personal appearance.
   • Relevance: This case supports the cancellation of NBWs through counsel, particularly when the accused assures future compliance, and highlights that personal presence is not a prerequisite.
5. Supreme Court: Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001)
   • Citation: (2001) 7 SCC 401.
   • Key Facts: The case involved an NBW issued in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case. The accused challenged the warrant, arguing it was issued without just cause.
   • Key Finding: The Supreme Court reiterated that NBWs should be issued only in compelling circumstances to avoid undue harassment. Courts must consider applications for cancellation on merits, including those filed by counsel, and should not insist on personal appearance unless necessary for serious offenses.
   • Relevance: This case supports the principle that NBWs can be canceled without the accused’s presence if valid reasons (e.g., procedural errors or genuine absence) are presented through legal representation.
6. Rajasthan High Court: D. Ramalingam v. R. Karthik (Date not specified in source)
   • Citation: Referenced in CaseMine (undated).
   • Key Facts: The accused sought cancellation of an NBW issued in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case, arguing that the absence was due to genuine reasons. The application was filed through counsel.
   • Key Finding: The court held that issuing NBWs without ascertaining the reasons for absence is improper. It directed courts to consider cancellation applications on merits, even if the accused is not present, provided valid reasons are submitted.
   • Relevance: This case supports the cancellation of NBWs in the absence of the accused, particularly in bailable or less serious offenses, when counsel presents a justified case.
7. Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Case under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act (2023)
   • Citation: Reported in LiveLaw (2023).
   • Key Facts: The accused failed to appear, leading to an NBW and proclamation under Section 82, CrPC. The court addressed whether personal appearance was necessary for cancellation.
   • Key Finding: The court clarified that under Section 205, CrPC (now Section 229, BNSS), magistrates can dispense with personal appearance, allowing counsel to represent the accused for cancellation applications. The court emphasized that in summons cases, proceedings can continue without the accused’s presence if represented by a lawyer.
   • Relevance: This case supports the cancellation of warrants in the absence of the accused, particularly in less serious cases, by leveraging provisions like Section 205.

Key Legal Principles from These Cases

• No Mandatory Presence: Courts, including the Supreme Court, Bombay High Court, and Telangana High Court, have consistently held that the accused’s personal appearance is not mandatory for canceling a warrant. The counsel’s presence and a meritorious application suffice.
• Judicial Discretion: Courts must exercise discretion and evaluate the reasons for non-appearance (e.g., medical issues, personal hardships, or procedural errors) rather than mechanically rejecting cancellation applications.
• Sparing Use of NBWs: NBWs should be issued only for serious offenses or when there is evidence of evasion or tampering, implying that cancellation should be considered leniently in less serious cases.
• Role of Legal Representation: Provisions like Section 205 and 317, CrPC (now Sections 229 and 356, BNSS) allow representation by counsel, facilitating cancellation without physical presence.
• Undertakings: Courts often cancel warrants if the accused provides an undertaking to appear at future hearings, which can be submitted through counsel.

Additional Notes

• Context of Offense: Courts are more likely to allow cancellation without presence in cases involving bailable or less serious offenses (e.g., Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act) compared to heinous crimes (e.g., murder or terrorism).
• Procedure: The accused’s counsel must file an application under Section 70(2), CrPC (now Section 72(2), BNSS), supported by evidence like medical certificates or affidavits. In case of rejection, a petition under Section 482, CrPC (now Section 528, BNSS) can be filed in the High Court.
• Practical Advice: Engaging an experienced lawyer is crucial to draft a robust application and navigate judicial discretion. Prompt action is necessary to avoid complications like arrest or proclamation under Section 82, CrPC (now Section 84, BNSS).

The above case laws, spanning decisions from the Supreme Court, Bombay High Court, Telangana High Court, Rajasthan High Court, and Jammu & Kashmir High Court, establish that a warrant, including an NBW, can be canceled in the absence of the accused in India. The courts emphasize that applications for cancellation should be considered on merits, with the accused represented by counsel, and personal appearance is not a legal prerequisite. These precedents are particularly relevant for less serious offenses or where genuine reasons for absence are provided.

Here is a list of key case laws from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts that support the legal position on the cancellation of a warrant in the absence of the accused. These judgments clarify the principles and guidelines that courts must follow.

Supreme Court of India

• Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2007) 12 SCC 1: This landmark judgment emphasized that non-bailable warrants should be issued only as a last resort and with due caution. The Court held that the personal liberty of an individual is paramount and a warrant should not be issued mechanically. It laid down guidelines stating that before issuing a non-bailable warrant, a court must be fully satisfied that the accused is intentionally avoiding the court’s proceedings. This case is often cited to argue against the arbitrary use of warrants and to support their cancellation when justified reasons for absence are provided.
• Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 9 SCC 101: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles from Inder Mohan Goswami, holding that the power to issue non-bailable warrants must be exercised with great circumspection. It held that the warrants should not be issued without proper scrutiny and only after the court is fully satisfied that the presence of the accused cannot be secured through summons or bailable warrants.
• Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (2022) 10 SCC 51: This judgment provided extensive guidelines on bail and the issuance of warrants. The Court clarified that non-bailable warrants should not be cancelled as a matter of routine. However, it also stated that in cases where an accused has cooperated with the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required, the court may consider cancelling the warrant without insisting on their physical presence.
• Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401: This case involved the non-appearance of an accused in a summons case. The Supreme Court held that in such matters, the court may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused under Section 205 of the CrPC and allow them to be represented by their lawyer. This principle is often applied by analogy to argue that a warrant issued for non-appearance should be cancelled if the accused is now willing to appear through counsel and cooperate.

High Courts

• Ramesh Kotecha v. State of Maharashtra (2010) ALL MR (Cri) 2368 (Bombay High Court): This ruling emphasized that a Magistrate’s discretion to refuse to cancel a non-bailable warrant must be exercised judicially. The court observed that it was not justified in rejecting an application for exemption and refusing to cancel a warrant when the accused’s counsel had filed an application stating that the accused was unwell.
• Sudarshansingh v. State (Gujarat High Court): The court, in this case, set aside the trial court’s order refusing to cancel a warrant. It highlighted that when the accused has cooperated with the investigation and is ready to participate in the trial, there is no justification for their arrest. This decision supports the view that a warrant can be cancelled in the absence of the accused if they demonstrate a clear intent to cooperate with the legal process.

These case laws collectively establish that while the personal appearance of an accused is the general rule, courts have the power to cancel a warrant in their absence if a genuine and justifiable reason is presented, particularly when the accused is not a flight risk and has an intention to cooperate with the judicial proceedings.

Procedure for Cancellation of Arrest Warrant in Absence of Accused

1. Filing an Application: The accused or their legal representative must file an application before the issuing court explaining the reasons for the absence and requesting the cancellation of the arrest warrant.

2. Supporting Documents: Attach relevant documents supporting the reasons for absence, such as medical certificates, travel documents, or other valid reasons.

3. Court’s Discretion: The court will evaluate the application and decide whether to cancel the warrant based on the merits of the case and the reasons provided.