Police Duty-Bound To Find Accused Across India, Produce Him In Court; 'Untraceable' Plea Not Permissible: Allahabad HC

The Court added that under the Police Act, the police have to serve warrants to the accused; hence, non-service of warrants shows that the police are not interested in serving warrants.

Reiterating its stance on police responsibility, Justice Vikram D. Chauhan's bench emphasized that the police cannot claim in court that the accused are "untraceable" as a justification for failing to serve warrants.

The Court made these observations while addressing a plea filed by Vidya Singh under Section 482 of the CrPC. The applicant contended that the accused persons in the case were not appearing before the court, despite issuing a non-bailable warrant and initiating proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC.

However, the police authorities were not executing the warrants and failing to ensure the accused's appearance in court, it was submitted.

On April 10, the AGA, appearing for the state, prayed for and was granted 10 days' time to explain why accused persons were not being produced before the court concerned in pursuance to a non-bailable warrant and proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 CrPC.

However, on May 23, the AGA, on instruction, submitted that police had visited the house of the accused persons. However, they were not found there.

Irked by the AGA's response that the accused are untraceable, the Court noted that even though the non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused persons in December 2021, it was very strange that the police couldn't trace them for the last three years.

“Under the Police Act, it is the duty of the police to serve warrant. Non service of warrant, shows that police is not interested in serving warrant. Such a situation cannot be permitted to continue. The police authority cannot make statement before the Court that accused-persons are not traceable. It is the duty of the police to find out the accused-persons where they are in India and produce them before the Court concerned,” the Court further observed.

Initially, while the Court was inclined to issue a notice to the Director General of Police for the conduct of the police department, Bhadohi, however, the Court did not do so after the AGA assured the single judge that he would talk to the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi, in the matter and that steps would be taken to arrest the accused immediately.

On the assurance of AGA, the Court listed the matter for hearing on May 28 and sought the personal affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi.