The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the legality of an arrest warrant issued during the course of investigation against an accused named in a major liquor scam case, observing that Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now replaced by Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), empowers a Magistrate to issue such a warrant if the accused is alleged to have committed a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the judgment on June 26, 2025, in W.P.(Cr.) No. 342 of 2025, filed by the petitioner Vijay Kumar Bhatia.
Background
The petitioner, a resident of Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, challenged the order dated May 16, 2025, passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raipur, which had issued a warrant of arrest against him in connection with FIR No. 04/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner contended that the arrest was unlawful and violative of his fundamental rights, especially when he had not been summoned during the 1.5 years since the FIR was lodged and had extended cooperation during investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in related proceedings.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the arrest warrant was arbitrary, issued without any effort to summon the petitioner or assess the necessity of such coercive action. It was also argued that the petitioner had not been named in any of the three charge sheets filed in the case and was never served with any notice under Section 41A CrPC or Section 35(3) BNSS.
It was further submitted that the petitioner was arrested at the Delhi airport while en route to Brazil and was not shown the arrest warrant or informed of its contents, in contravention of Section 77 of the BNSS / Section 75 of the CrPC.
Counsel for the State, Mr. Vivek Sharma, and for the ED, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, defended the issuance of the arrest warrant, stating that the petitioner was a named accused (No. 43) in the FIR and the investigation is still ongoing. The arrest was necessary as the petitioner was found to be absconding and had not appeared despite efforts.
Court’s Analysis
The Court rejected the petitioner’s submission that he was not an accused in the case merely because he was not named in the charge sheets. It held:
“Admittedly, the petitioner is named in the FIR and his name finds place at serial No. 43 of the list of the accused and as per the learned counsel for the respondents, the investigation is still going on.”
The Court clarified that the warrant issued by the Additional Sessions Judge was not a non-bailable warrant but a warrant to secure the petitioner’s presence during investigation.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 438, the High Court observed:
“Section 73 of the Cr.P.C. is of general application. Even in course of investigation, Court can issue warrant under this provision to apprehend a person accused of non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.”
The Court emphasized that since the petitioner attempted to leave the country after the warrant was issued, it prima facie indicated an intent to evade arrest:
“The conduct of the petitioner is of much importance. The petitioner planned to go abroad i.e. Brazil on 30.05.2025 which prima facie shows that the petitioner was aware that he could be arrested at any point of time and by leaving the country, he was trying to evade his arrest and had no intentions to cooperate with the investigation.”
It further stated that the petitioner, being named in the FIR, had the duty to seek appropriate relief from a competent court rather than avoid investigation.
Decision
Finding no infirmity in the issuance of the warrant or subsequent proceedings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The bench concluded:
“The reasons assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order is just and proper and reasons are well merited. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the same and no relief as prayed for in this petition can be granted to the petitioner.”
However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek regular bail if so advised, noting that his earlier bail plea had been rejected by the trial court on June 20, 2025.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Bhatia vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another
Case No.: W.P.(Cr.) No. 342 of 2025
