The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with an arrest warrant and subsequent proclamation issued against Md. Nazibuddin @ Tulu Mondal in connection with a criminal case registered in West Bengal. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya held that the circumstances of the case justified the steps taken by the court below, particularly since the petitioner had already left India before the criminal prosecution was initiated.
Background
The matter arose from Mohammad Bazar Police Station Case FIR No. 267/26, registered on July 30, 2026. The petitioner challenged two orders passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum.
The first order, dated July 30, 2026, directed issuance of a non-bailable warrant of arrest. The second, dated August 10, 2026, issued a proclamation requiring the petitioner to appear before the court on September 14, 2026.
The petitioner argued that the warrant was issued on the very day the FIR was registered and that there had been no sufficient basis to conclude that he was evading arrest. He also challenged the proclamation on the ground that the requirements under Sections 75 and 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 had not been properly established.
The State informed the High Court that the investigating agency had learned through the NATGRID portal that the petitioner had left India on May 23, 2026. According to the State, efforts were subsequently made to execute the warrant, but it could not be executed because the petitioner was outside the country. A non-execution report was then submitted before the court.
The High Court also examined a report submitted by the Inspector-in-Charge of Mohammad Bazar Police Station on September 22, 2026, which was taken on record in sealed cover.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya noted that the petitioner had indisputably left India on May 23, 2026, before the criminal prosecution began on July 30, 2026.
The Court observed,
"It is true that under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 one of the conditions contemplated is warrant of arrest can be issued against any person who is accused of non-bailable offence and is evading arrest."
The Court further held that the petitioner's argument concerning the absence of sufficient time to establish that he was evading arrest lost significance because he had already left the country before registration of the case.
The Court also considered the Supreme Court's decision in State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar & Others, observing that the factual situation in the present case was different because the petitioner had already left India before the prosecution commenced.
The High Court found no fault with the July 30 order issuing the arrest warrant. It held that after the petitioner did not appear before the court on August 7, 2026, the authorities were entitled to take steps for issuance of a proclamation under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court also took note of the investigation report, which recorded the recovery of cash amounting to Rs. 28,53,47000/- and 15 kg of gold bars suspected to be proceeds of crime, besides physical and electronic documents allegedly disclosing the commission of organised crime and the discovery of substantial funds in various bank and other accounts.
It ultimately refused to interfere with the revisional application and dismissed it.
Case Details
- Case Title: Md. Nazibuddin @ Tulu Mondal v. The State of West Bengal
- Case Number: CRR 3444 of 2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya
- Decision Date: September 22, 2026
