Allowed

Sharmistha Das and Another v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC10 Jul 2026CRR/1778/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Holding that simultaneous issuance of warrants of proclamation and attachment is unauthorized under the BNSS without recording specific satisfaction under Sections 84 and 85, this court set aside the impugned orders while preserving the trial court's power to issue such warrants upon compliance with law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16.3.2026 and subsequent orders pertaining to simultaneous issuance of warrant of proclamation and warrant of attachment are set aside.

Sharmistha Das and Another Vs State of West… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

10.7.2026 9 sb

¶2

CRR 1778 of 2026

¶3

Sarmistha Das & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal

¶4

Mr. Rabiul Islam Mr. Masooq Rahman Mr. Raju Mondal …for the petitioners Mr. Sagar Saha …for the State

¶5

The petitioners herein are aggrieved with the order dated 16.3.2026 and the order dated 4.4.2026 by which the court below had issued warrant of proclamation and warrant of attachment simultaneously going against the provision under Section 84 and 85 of the BNSS.

¶6

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were diligent in attending the court. However, due to mis-communication in between the petitioners and his lawyer, proper steps could not be taken before the court below and for which, the warrant of arrest was issued against him on 11.12.2023. Thereafter, without receiving any non-execution report, the court below by the impugned order had issued warrant of proclamation and warrant of attachment simultaneously. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside of the order impugned.

¶7

Learned counsel for the State leaves the prayer of the petitioners to the discretion of the court.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, it appears that on 16.3.2026, the court below has not

¶9

¶10

received any non-execution report in respect of warrant of arrest issued by him. Simply on the basis of the prayer made on behalf of the Investigating officer, the court below issued warrant of proclamation and warrant of attachment simultaneously.

¶11

It is settled law that only in the circumstances mentioned in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 85 of BNSS, the court is authorized to issue the order of proclamation and attachment simultaneously. Process under Section 84 cannot be issued unless it is established that a warrant had already been issued against the person wanted and that he is absconding. Absconding means that the person concerned hides himself form the process of law. In the order impugned, the court below without recording any such satisfaction had issued the warrant of proclamation and warrant of attachment simultaneously, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶12

In view of above, the impugned order dated 16.3.2026 and subsequent orders, which pertain to simultaneous issuance of warrant of proclamation and warrant of attachment are hereby set aside.

¶13

CRR 1778 of 2026 thus stands allowed.

¶14

However, this order shall not prevent the Trial court to issue warrant of proclamation and warrant of attachment against the petitioners at a subsequent stage, if required after complying the provision laid down under Section 84 and 85 of the BNSS.

¶15

Be it made clear that this order will not prevent the court below to act in terms of order dated 11.12.2023, by which the court below issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

¶16

¶17

Urgent photostat certified of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶18

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Sharmistha Das and Another v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharmistha Das and Another v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savita Liladhar Vaswani Vs Ketan Dungarsi Nagrecha and Others

Spectrum Petromac Private Limited Vs M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. and Others

Arindam Kundu Vs Adeeti Biswas

Debasish Chatterjee Vs Ranjit Kumar Karmakar and Another

Sudipta Samanta Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Arjun Kumar Giri Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.