Non-bailable warrants during investigation may issue against an accused evading arrest and be pursued through diplomatic channels abroad.

Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as available during investigation to issue non-bailable warrants against a person accused of a non-bailable offence and evading arrest, where the court records prima facie satisfaction that arrest is warranted. The decision also recognised that, where the person is abroad and no extradition treaty is available, execution may lawfully be pursued through diplomatic channels and Interpol, provided the warrant is issued in proper form and to a competent person. The warrant's validity was therefore upheld, and the challenge to interference failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-bailable warrants could be issued during investigation against a person said to be accused of a non-bailable offence and evading arrest; (ii) Whether the warrant could validly be transmitted and pursued through diplomatic channels for securing the person's presence from abroad.

Issue (i): Whether non-bailable warrants could be issued during investigation against a person said to be accused of a non-bailable offence and evading arrest.

Analysis: The statutory power under Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held to be available during investigation as well as at later stages. The power may be exercised where the person is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. The material placed before the Special Judge disclosed a prima facie case linking the petitioner to the alleged criminal conspiracy and the movement of funds, and the issuing court recorded its satisfaction on that basis. The decision distinguished situations where warrants are sought merely to secure attendance for interrogation, and held that the warrant in the present case was issued on the footing that the petitioner was an accused person and was required for lawful arrest.

Conclusion: The issuance of non-bailable warrants was upheld as within jurisdiction and valid in law.

Issue (ii): Whether the warrant could validly be transmitted and pursued through diplomatic channels for securing the person's presence from abroad.

Analysis: The warrant was issued in the prescribed form and addressed to a competent person. The Court held that there is no legal prohibition against seeking execution through executive or diplomatic channels where the person is outside India and no extradition treaty is available. Reliance was placed on the settled principle that a warrant may be executed in aid of securing arrest even beyond local jurisdiction, and that resort to Interpol and diplomatic processes does not invalidate the warrant. The existence of a Red Corner Notice and the absence of an extradition treaty were treated as supporting the practicality, not the legality, of that course.

Conclusion: The use of diplomatic channels and Interpol to pursue execution of the warrant was held to be lawful.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order issuing non-bailable warrants failed, and the petitioner's request for interference was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: During investigation, a court may issue non-bailable warrants under Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against a person accused of a non-bailable offence and evading arrest, and such warrant may be pursued through lawful executive or diplomatic channels when the person is abroad.

---