Taking serious exception to the casual approach adopted by police officials in executing a bailable warrant, Presiding Officer Fast Track Court Jammu, Amarjeet Singh Langeh, has pulled up the Jammu Police for attempting to secure the presence of a prosecutrix through WhatsApp and telephone calls instead of executing the warrant in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
The court observed that informing a person about a bailable warrant through informal electronic communication cannot substitute the legally mandated procedure for its execution and described the conduct of the executing agency as an illustration of a profound casual approach.
The observations came during the hearing of a criminal case titled UT of J&K through SHO Police Station Nowabad Versus Ajay Kumar alias Atief Ahmed, involving offences under Sections 376 and 420 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), arising out of FIR No. 134/2019 registered at Police Station Nowabad, Jammu.
According to the judicial record, the prosecutrix had failed to appear before the court despite service, following which a bailable warrant amounting to Rs 10,000 was ordered against her on July 8, 2026, to secure her presence.
However, the warrant was not received back on the subsequent hearing date of August 10, 2026, compelling the court to issue a fresh warrant. Even on September 11, 2026, the warrant was not returned either served or unserved, prompting the court to issue another bailable warrant of Rs 10,000.
During the hearing, APP Ajay Dogra, appearing for the prosecution, produced the unexecuted bailable warrant along with the report submitted by the executing agency.
After examining the report, the court expressed strong displeasure and termed it “amazingly surprising”, observing that the executing police official had reported informing the prosecutrix through WhatsApp and telephone about the requirement of her appearance before the court.
The court further noted that the endorsement regarding such communication had also been made by the Incharge Police Post Canal Road, Jammu.
Coming down heavily on the police officials, the court observed that merely sending information about the warrant instead of physically executing it was not only impermissible in law but also demonstrated a casual and legally untenable approach towards judicial directions.
“Sending an information about the bailable warrant to the concerned by executing agency instead of physically executing the same – is not only impermissible in law but also an illustration of profound casual approach, quite contrary to procedure,” the court observed.
The court further categorically held that Information through informal electronic transmissions via Whatsapp is not substitute for legally mandated mode of execution of warrant of arrest.
Taking a stern view of the matter, the court directed the SHO Police Station Nowabad, Jammu, to obtain explanations from SGCT Shiv Kumar, the executing police official, and the Incharge Police Post Canal Road, Jammu, regarding their conduct in the execution of the warrant.
The court specifically sought explanations as to why it should not recommend disciplinary proceedings against the officials for adopting an approach that was prima facie contrary to law.
The court also ordered the issuance of a fresh bailable warrant amounting to Rs 10,000 against the prosecutrix, directing that the same be executed by the SHO Police Station Nowabad, Jammu.
Meanwhile, the accused, who was absent during the proceedings, was granted exemption from personal appearance for the day on an application moved through his counsel.
The matter has been listed for November 27, 2026, for prosecution evidence.
Leave a Reply