Objecting to this, the prosecution moved an appeal submitting that once the final report has been filed and the accused absconding for long, the JM ought to have issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) instead of issuing summons. It was further pointed out that in NDPS Act cases, even after filing of the final report, with the accused reported absconding, the trial court released the accused on bail by executing a bond under Section 88 of CrPC.

However, in the explanation sought by the court in this regard, the JM on referring to various Supreme Court judgments, justified the issuance of summons at the first instance, and stated that in the event of accused failing to appear on the summons, then, a bailable or non-bailable warrant will be issued. Based on this, the bench, while referring the issue to the administrative judge, held that since confusion prevails in subordinate courts regarding issuance of summons and warrants to the absconding accused, a proper guideline has to be issued in this regard.

Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!