Non-bailable warrants cannot be used to secure interrogation of an accused abroad absent statutory basis for arrest.

During investigation, non-bailable warrants cannot be issued against an accused residing abroad unless the statutory conditions for such warrants are satisfied, including a basis to treat the person as evading arrest. The Court held that Section 160 CrPC did not extend police attendance powers to a person outside the officer's territorial limits, and Section 73 could not be used to secure presence merely for interrogation. On the inspection issue, the refusal to inspect the record was upheld because the vakalatnama and authorisation documents were inconsistent and the authenticity requirement was treated as a matter of judicial discretion. The challenge to that order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-bailable warrants could validly be issued against an accused residing abroad for the purpose of securing his presence for interrogation during investigation. (ii) Whether the order refusing inspection of the record on the footing that the vakalatnama or power of attorney was not duly authenticated called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether non-bailable warrants could validly be issued against an accused residing abroad for the purpose of securing his presence for interrogation during investigation.

Analysis: Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the police to require attendance only of a person within the limits of the officer's own or adjoining station, and the petitioner, having been residing in Dubai, was outside that territorial reach. Section 73 of the Code authorises warrants against a person accused of a non-bailable offence who is evading arrest, but the material showed that the petitioner was not being sought for arrest as an accused and was required only for interrogation. The Court further held that the use of the Court's process during investigation could be reviewed when the process itself was invoked, but the facts did not show that the petitioner was evading arrest so as to justify the issuance of non-bailable warrants for securing his attendance before the Special Judge.

Conclusion: The non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were without jurisdiction and could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the order refusing inspection of the record on the footing that the vakalatnama or power of attorney was not duly authenticated called for interference.

Analysis: The Special Judge had acted on the peculiar circumstances in which inconsistent authorisations had been placed on record, including a vakalatnama that was later admitted not to bear the petitioner's signatures. In those circumstances, the requirement of an authenticated power of attorney was treated as a matter of judicial discretion, and no legal infirmity was shown in the refusal to permit inspection on that basis. The separate question of the exact record available for inspection was left open to be decided by the Special Judge if and when properly raised.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the order refusing inspection of the record.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent that the non-bailable warrants were set aside for want of jurisdiction, while the challenge to the inspection-related orders failed.

Ratio Decidendi: During investigation, the police cannot obtain non-bailable warrants against an accused who is abroad and is not shown to be evading arrest; the Court's process cannot be used to compel presence for interrogation unless the statutory conditions for issuance of such warrants are satisfied.

---