The High Court reaffirms that compliance with non-bailable warrant procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure is essential before hearing a criminal appeal in the accused’s absence, but does not create new law or overrule prior precedent; the ruling confirms existing practice in criminal appellate procedure, and serves as binding authority for all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/335/2010 of LAKHESHWAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010128552010 |
| Date of Registration | 03-05-2010 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court underscores the necessity of ensuring physical presence of the accused produced via non-bailable warrant before proceeding with final appellate hearings.
- Consent of both parties is explicitly recorded before final hearing after compliance with warrant procedures.
- The order reiterates the importance of procedural safeguards before appellate adjudication in criminal matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appellant was produced pursuant to a non-bailable warrant, satisfying the procedural requirement for ensuring presence during appeal.
- The court recorded the presence of the appellant before ordering that he be sent back to jail, establishing compliance with statutory procedure.
- Final hearing of the appeal was only undertaken after both parties consented, reflecting adherence to principles of natural justice.
- The judgment does not alter the existing legal landscape, but reaffirms that appeals cannot be disposed without procedural compliance regarding accused’s presence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- No substantive arguments on procedure recorded; consented to final hearing after presence was secured.
Respondent (State):
- No substantive procedural objections recorded; consented to proceeding with the appeal after accused’s production.
Factual Background
The accused/appellant, lodged at Central Jail, Jagdalpur, was brought before the High Court of Chhattisgarh pursuant to a non-bailable warrant issued on 01.09.2025. His presence was marked as required under the criminal procedure framework. With both prosecution and appellant’s counsel consenting, the appeal was heard and disposed of finally by the court.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment references application and compliance with procedures for issuing and executing non-bailable warrants within the context of final hearing of a criminal appeal. The presence of the accused, when secured via such a warrant, is a precondition for lawful adjudication, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations are introduced; the judgment follows established statutory procedure for securing presence of accused and recording party consent before appellate hearing.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing criminal appellate procedure affirmed; no break from established law.