Non-bailable warrants upheld where repeated non-appearance showed evasion and physical presence was necessary for investigation.

The HC held that no further clarification was required on the media-reporting complaint because the publication had taken a general remark out of context, and the media was expected to exercise its own responsibility in fair reporting; the application was therefore disposed of. On the non-bailable warrants, the Court upheld the coercive process, applying the settled principle that such warrants may issue when repeated summons fail and the accused is objectively found to be evading investigation. Repeated non-appearance, the need for physical presence, and the inadequacy of video conferencing in the circumstances justified refusal to cancel the warrants; the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any further clarification or directions were required on the media reporting complaint concerning the alleged attribution of remarks to the Court. (ii) Whether the order refusing cancellation of the non-bailable warrants was justified on the ground that the petitioner was wilfully evading the investigation.

Issue (i): Whether any further clarification or directions were required on the media reporting complaint concerning the alleged attribution of remarks to the Court.

Analysis: The complaint was examined in the light of the duty of accurate and fair media reporting. The reported material was found to have taken an innocuous general remark out of context and to have sensationalised it as a personal adverse observation. The Court found that no such clarification or mandatory direction was required because the media is expected to exercise its own responsibility and discern what is germane to court proceedings.

Conclusion: No further clarification or directions were required, and the application was disposed of.

Issue (ii): Whether the order refusing cancellation of the non-bailable warrants was justified on the ground that the petitioner was wilfully evading the investigation.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that a non-bailable warrant is a coercive and exceptional measure to secure attendance and may be issued when summons fail and the accused is objectively found to be evading the process of law. It held that the petitioner had been repeatedly summoned, had not joined physically despite repeated opportunities, and could not insist on video conferencing as a substitute for physical presence where effective confrontation with voluminous documents and custodial interrogation were considered necessary. The pleas of illness, foreign residence, alleged discrimination, and mala fides were rejected on the facts. The cited foreign-travel and video-conferencing precedents were held distinguishable.

Conclusion: The refusal to cancel the non-bailable warrants was upheld and the petition challenging it was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Court sustained the coercive process issued to secure the petitioner's physical presence for investigation and declined to interfere with the media-clarification complaint, resulting in no relief to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-bailable warrants may be upheld during investigation where the court records objective satisfaction, based on repeated non-appearance and surrounding circumstances, that the accused is wilfully evading the process of law and physical presence is necessary for effective investigation.

---