17. 16.09.2026. Court No.237. (Pritam) CRR 3730 of 2026. Sk. Shamim Hussain. -Vs.- State of West Bengal&Anr. Mr. SatadruLahiri, Mr. Safdar Azam. …for the petitioner. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP., Mr. SubirGanguly, Mr. Sandeep Prasad Shaw. ....for the State. Let the supplementary affidavit and the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the records. The petitioner challenges the order and all subsequent orders passed in Complaint Case No. 390 of 2018 under Sections 276(1)/277A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. Mr. Lahiri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Magistrate was not justified in issuing a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner in the first instance, particularly when the alleged offences are bailable in nature. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate could not have issued the proclamation and attachment orders simultaneously on October 16, 2019, and 2 subsequently on July 15, 2026, without recording the requisite satisfaction in terms of the first proviso to Section 83(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is submitted that the petitioner was never aware of any summons having been served upon him. The petitioner came to know of the proceedings only after July 22, 2026, when a copy of the proclamation was served upon his father. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Lahiri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, that, having regard to the nature of the offences involved in the present case, the learned Magistrate ought to have issued a bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner in the first instance. It further appears that the learned Magistrate was not justified in issuing the proclamation and attachment orders simultaneously without recording the requisite satisfaction in terms of the first proviso to Section 83(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mr. Lahiri submits that the petitioner is willing and prepared to surrender before the learned Magistrate within a period of three weeks from date. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the present revisional application with the following directions: 3 (i) The warrant of arrest and the proclamation order issued against the petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of one month from date. (ii) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate within a period of three weeks from date. Upon such surrender, the learned Magistrate shall grant bail to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate and shall pass all consequential orders in accordance with law. (iii) In the event the petitioner fails to surrender before the learned Magistrate within the period specified above, the warrant of arrest and the proclamation order issued against him shall automatically stand revived, and the learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions and observations, CRR 3730 of 2026 is disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.)