IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri 08.07.2026 Item No. 59 Ct. No. 5 CRR/242/2026 S.De In Re:- An application under Section 442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In the matter of : TAHER MIYA @ TAHER ALI … Petitioners. Mr. Prajnadeepta Roy Mr. Sohini Kundu Mr. Sabir Ali Mr. Jaimallya Bhattacharya …for the Petitioner. 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 16.6.26 in NDPS case No. 40 of 2025, now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court (NDPS), Cooch Behar. 2. By dint of the said order, the Court has issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner due to his non- appearance before the Court on the date fixed. 3. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner through virtual mode has informed on the basis of the annexed document that the petitioner is presently in custody in connection with Sitai Police Station Case No.194 of 2025 dated 22.08.2025 [State vs. Taher Miya]. 4. Accordingly, Mr. Roy has submitted that instead of warrant of arrest, a production warrant may have been issued for production of the petitioner before the landed Trial Court from correctional home. 2 5. Having perused the records and hearing the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, the Court is of considered opinion that the petitioner in this case being already in custody in connection with Sitai Police Station Case No.194 of 2025 dated 22.08.2025 and as such could not have been produced before the Court on the date of impugned order, excepting by virtue of a production warrant. 6. Where an accused person is already in lawful judicial or police custody in connection with another criminal case, the Court taking cognizance of a separate case should ordinarily refrain from issuing a warrant of arrest against such accused. Since the accused is already under lawful detention, there is no occasion to secure his arrest afresh. Instead, the proper course is to issue a production warrant requiring the Officer-in-Charge of the correctional home to produce him before the Court in connection with a subsequent case. A production warrant serves the object of securing the accused person’s presence before the Court while maintaining the continuity and legality of the existing custody. The issuance of a fresh warrant of arrest in such circumstance is unnecessary and may create procedural complication regarding the nature and continuity of custody. 7. The proposition that when an accused person is already in judicial custody in another case, the proper procedure is to secure his presence by production warrant rather than by issuing a warrant of arrest, has been duly enumerated by the Supreme Court in its authoritative judgment in Pradip Ram versus State of Jharkhand reported in (2019) 17 SCC 326. The Supreme Court has considered the procedure to be 3 followed where an accused already lodged in jail in one case is required in connection with another criminal case. The Court observed that where the accused is already in jail in another case, the investigating agency should approach the competent Court for issuance of a production warrant so that the accused may be produced before the Court and appropriate remand orders may thereafter, be passed by the Court. 8. Hence, in view of the position of law settled in this regard as discussed above, the learned trial Court should have considered for his production from custody, for the purpose of the present case. 9. Therefore, it is found proper to set aside the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 in NDPS case No.40 of 2025 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court (NDPS), Cooch Behar for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 10. Let the appropriate authority take necessary steps in accordance with the law before the learned trial Court, and the Court is to proceed there upon in a manner as just and proper as per law. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Court did not find it necessary to direct for issuance of notice against the state in this case and the matter has been disposed of in absence of the state, with the direction as above. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)