Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 80
Warrant forwarded for execution outside jurisdiction
(1) When a warrant is to be executed outside the local jurisdiction of the Court issuing it, such Court may, instead of directing the warrant to a police officer within its jurisdiction, forward it by post or otherwise to any Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed; and the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner shall endorse his name thereon, and if practicable, cause it to be executed in the manner hereinbefore provided.
(2) The Court issuing a warrant under sub-section (1) shall forward, along with thewarrant, the substance of the information against the person to be arrested together with such documents, if any, as may be sufficient to enable the Court acting under section 83 to decide whether bail should or should not be granted to the person.
Why this exists
Indian courts operate within defined local jurisdictions, but crime and accused persons don't respect those boundaries. This provision (carried forward from Section 78 of the CrPC, 1973) solves the practical problem of executing an arrest warrant when the wanted person is located outside the issuing court's territorial reach. Rather than requiring police officers to travel long distances into unfamiliar jurisdictions, the law allows the warrant to be routed through local authorities who know the area and can act more efficiently. The bail-related requirement in sub-section (2) was added to ensure that an arrested person's right to seek bail isn't delayed or denied simply because the case file is far away.
How courts read it
Courts have historically treated the erstwhile Section 78 CrPC as a procedural and practical mechanism rather than a jurisdictional bar—failure to strictly follow this route (e.g., sending a warrant directly instead of through the prescribed local officer) has generally been treated as a curable irregularity rather than one that invalidates the arrest, provided the arrested person's rights (like access to bail) are not prejudiced. The requirement to forward case information to enable bail decisions has been read as safeguarding personal liberty, aligning with the constitutional protections against arbitrary detention.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Only the court that issued the warrant can arrest the person, no matter where they are.
Fact: The issuing court can forward the warrant to local police or magistrates in another jurisdiction to have it executed there. - Myth: Sending the warrant elsewhere means the accused loses the chance to get bail quickly.
Fact: Sub-section (2) requires the issuing court to send case details along with the warrant precisely so that the local court can decide on bail without delay.