Sourabh Dubey vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court held that the trial court's order dated January 31, 2026, issuing a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner was erroneous. The Court found that the trial court had issued the non-bailable warrant without recording any finding as to whether the bailable warrant issued on the previous date had been served. This procedural lapse rendered the order unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order dated January 31, 2026, passed by the trial court was set aside. The petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court on or before March 26, 2026, and the trial court was instructed to proceed further in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that a non-bailable warrant cannot be issued without establishing non-compliance with a bailable warrant, typically through proof of service.

Facts

The petitioner, Sourabh Dubey, filed a criminal miscellaneous case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an order of the trial court. A charge sheet had been filed against the petitioner under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, an offense stated to be bailable. The trial court initially issued a bailable warrant on December 27, 2025, fixing January 31, 2026, for appearance. However, on January 31, 2026, the trial court issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner without any recorded finding that the earlier bailable warrant had been served. The petitioner contended that this issuance of a non-bailable warrant was erroneous and sought its setting aside, expressing readiness to appear before the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in issuing a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner without recording a finding that the previously issued bailable warrant had been served, as required by law? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the trial court's order issuing a non-bailable warrant on January 31, 2026, was erroneous and without basis. They contended that there was no finding in the order sheet to indicate that the bailable warrant issued on December 27, 2025, had been served upon the petitioner. Therefore, the issuance of a non-bailable warrant was unjustified and liable to be set aside. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. No specific arguments or reliance on any provisions, circulars, or precedents were recorded for the respondent.