Form of warrant of arrest and duration
Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with form of warrant of arrest and duration. Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this Sanhita shall be in writing, signed by the presiding officer of such Court and shall bear the seal of the Court. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this Sanhita shall be in writing, signed by the presiding officer of such Court and shall bear the seal of the Court.
(2) Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.
Section 72, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 70 Form of warrant of arrest and duration Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Lt. Governor, Nct vs Ved Prakash @ Vedu
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 70, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In externment proceedings under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, the authority need only inform the proposed externee of the general nature of material allegations, not specific particulars or the names of reluctant witnesses. Disclosure of witness identity would compromise their safety and defeat the statutory purpose. However, the High Court should examine the entire record, including in-camera witness statements, to satisfy itself that witnesses have genuinely expressed apprehension about deposing due to the respondent's activities. The satisfaction of the authority, though primarily subjective, must be based on objective criteria and material evidence. The court can interfere with an externment order only if the satisfaction is demonstratively perverse, based on no evidence, or if the respondent was not given due opportunity resulting in prejudice. Once such satisfaction is reached by the court, it should not interfere with the externment order.
On this section: Procedural provisions made applicable to externment proceedings under Section 50 of Delhi Police Act, relating to warrant execution, security bonds, and other procedural matters.
-
Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 70, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a corporation is an accused person in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and it appoints an authorized representative as permitted under Section 305 CrPC, the District Consumer Forum cannot insist on the personal appearance of the Managing Director or any other specific officer. The statutory requirement that the accused shall be examined is satisfied by the examination of the authorized representative. The District Forum is bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and cannot impose additional requirements beyond what the statute permits.
On this section: Procedure for recall of bailable warrants. The petitioner filed a petition under this section seeking recall of the bailable warrants issued by the District Forum.
-
G.v. Harsha Kumar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 70, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Before issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant, a court must conduct proper inquiry and record clear and cogent reasons to conclude that the accused is deliberately avoiding summons. The court cannot mechanically issue an NBW without verifying whether proper service of summons was effected according to the procedures laid down in Sections 62-65 CrPC. The issuance of NBW involves interference with personal liberty and therefore requires great caution and careful scrutiny of facts. A court's failure to conduct such inquiry and record reasons constitutes an abuse of process that can be corrected under Section 482 CrPC.
On this section: Application for recall of Non-Bailable Warrant; lower court dismissed the application without proper inquiry
-
G.v. Harsha Kumar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 70, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Before issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant, a court must carefully examine the record and be personally satisfied with clear and cogent reasons that the accused is intentionally and deliberately evading service of summons. The court must conduct proper enquiry into the accused's claim of non-service and cannot mechanically issue a warrant based merely on the investigating agency's assertion of evasion. The issuance of NBW involves interference with personal liberty and therefore requires great caution and complete application of mind. Where an accused comes before the court with a specific allegation that he was not served with summons and had no knowledge of the case, the lower court's finding that he failed to furnish reasons for absence is unjustified.
On this section: Application to recall Non-Bailable Warrant; cited as basis for petitioner's application in lower court
-
Nunavath Shankar vs The State of Telangana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 70, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused who has been granted bail fails to appear in court and a Non-Bailable Warrant is executed leading to remand to judicial custody, the bail order does not stand automatically cancelled. However, the bonds executed by sureties stand automatically cancelled under Chapter XXXIII Cr.P.C. upon non-appearance of the accused. The proper remedy for the accused to seek bail reinstatement is not to file fresh bail applications, but to file an application or memo before the trial court to pay the penalty of the bond earlier forfeited. Only after payment of such penalty can fresh solvency be entertained for bail reinstatement. The accused must follow this procedure under Chapter XXXIII Cr.P.C., particularly Sections 442 and 450, rather than repeatedly filing bail applications.
On this section: Governs execution of Non-Bailable Warrant
-
Shayar Kumar vs State of Rajasthan through P.p.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 70, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A non-bailable warrant issued for non-appearance can be converted into a bailable warrant under Section 482 CrPC when the accused is not a habitual offender, the offences are relatively minor, the non-appearance was due to legitimate livelihood concerns rather than criminal intent, and the accused demonstrates willingness to comply with court orders. The conversion should be subject to strict conditions including fine payment, personal bond, and surety requirements to ensure the accused's appearance in court.
On this section: Application for conversion of warrant, which was rejected by the trial court and challenged in this petition
-
Annappa Devappa Kamate vs The General Manager
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 70, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has been released on bail after appearing in court and subsequently fails to appear, resulting in automatic forfeiture of the bail bond, the accused cannot file an application to recall a non-bailable warrant through counsel without personal appearance. Personal appearance of the accused is mandatory for such applications, as the accused is no longer on court bail. The right to represent through counsel at all stages of criminal proceedings is limited to cases where summons is issued under Section 206 CrPC, not in cases involving non-bailable warrants after bail forfeiture.
On this section: Court examined whether this section permits filing of warrant recall applications without the accused's presence. The court held that the section does not explicitly require the accused's presence, but the court's inherent powers and procedural requirements mandate it in cases where bail has been forfeited.
-
Katarapu Satish Kumar vs The State of Telangana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 70, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused arrested on a non-bailable warrant for non-appearance before the lower court can be granted regular bail by the High Court if the offence is bailable in nature, the accused has already undergone a reasonable period of judicial custody, and appropriate conditions are imposed to ensure regular court appearance and compliance with court orders.
On this section: Application for recall of non-bailable warrant; petitioner filed this application before the lower court, which was not considered, leading to the High Court petition
-
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 70, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A party seeking to withdraw a criminal revision petition may be granted permission to do so by the High Court, and such permission may be coupled with liberty to pursue alternative remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the appropriate subordinate court, provided the petitioner is duly present in court.
On this section: Provision allowing filing of petitions before the trial court; the court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under this section before the trial court after withdrawal from the High Court
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 72
What have the courts held on Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Lt. Governor, Nct vs Ved Prakash @ Vedu (05 May 2006) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 70, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Procedural provisions made applicable to externment proceedings under Section 50 of Delhi Police Act, relating to warrant execution, security bonds, and other procedural matters. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 72, section 72 BNSS, section 72 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 72(2). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Lt. Governor, Nct vs Ved Prakash @ Vedu (05 May 2006).
What should I read with Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 70 (Form of warrant of arrest and duration), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 72, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.