JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The instant criminal petition under Section 528 , Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [ BNSS ] is preferred by the petitioner seeking setting aside and/or quashing of an Order dated 08.08.2024 and other subsequent and consequential Orders passed thereafter by the Court of learned Special Judge, Cachar at Silchar [‘the Special Court’, for short] in NDPS Case no. 10/2008, whereby, the Special Court had issued Non-Bailable Warrants of Arrest [NBWAs] against the petitioner to secure his appearance in the proceedings of NDPS Case no. 10/2008 pending before it. The petitioner has also sought setting aside and/or quashing of another Order dated 28.10.2024 passed subsequently in the same proceedings. By the Order dated 28.10.2024, the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed absconder. 2. A brief narration of the previous events leading to the passing of the Orders, more particularly, the impugned Orders, dated 08.08.2024 and dated 28.10.2024, appears necessary to appreciate the issues raised and involved in the lis. 3. At around 08-00 hours on 02.08.2008, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI], Silchar proceeded to the Office and Godown premises of one M/s XPS Services located at Tarani Deb Nath Road, Rangirkhari at Silchar, after receipt of an information in that connection. The petitioner was the Supervisor of M/s XPS Services and he coming to the Office and Godown premises of M/s XPS Services at the instance of the Officers of the DRI, opened the Office and Godown premises of M/s XPS Services in presence of independent witnesses. Inside the Godown, five steel trunks, wrapped with hessian cloth, were found. The petitioner as the Godown Supervisor could not show any consignment notes and other supporting documents in respect of the said five steel trunks. On failure to provide any reasonable explanation and/or to furnish any supporting documents, the DRI Officeals asked the petitioner to open the five steel trunks in presence of independent witnesses. Upon opening the five steel trunks, it was found that the trunks contained green dry leaves, commercially known as Ganja, compressed in brick form of assorted size and shape wrapped with news paper and polythene/plastic coated brown papers and tied with cello tape. Altogether twenty-eight such packets were recovered from the said five steel trunks. On weighment, the total weight of the Ganja was found to be 274.452 KG. Altogether twenty-eight such packets were recovered from the said five steel trunks. On weighment, the total weight of the Ganja was found to be 274.452 KG. Samples of 24 gms each were thereafter, drawn from the packets. The seized Ganja was found to be worth Rs. 8,24,356/-. A case, Case no. 01/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2008-09 was registered by the DRI on 02.08.2008 and investigation ensued. 4. Upon completion of investigation, the respondent DRI submitted an Offence Report on 27.10.2008 in connection with Case no. 01/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2008-09 before the Special Court. On the basis of Case no. 01/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2008-09, Special Case no. 10/2008 was registered by the Special Court. In the Report submitted by the Intelligence Officer, DRI, Silchar, it was mentioned that the petitioner was found committing the offence under Section 20 [b][ii][C] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [NDPS] Act, 1985. 5. It is stated that the petitioner was arrested on 02.08.2008 itself by the DRI Officials exercising powers under Section 43 [d] read with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was thereafter, produced before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar on 03.08.2008. On being so produced, he was remanded to custody. 6. The proceedings of Special Case no. 10/2008 thereafter, proceeded before the Special Court. After securing appearance of the petitioner before the Special Court, copies of the relevant documents were furnished to him. After perusal of the materials in the case record; and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel; a charge under Section 20 [b][ii][C], NDPS Act was framed 02.01.2009 against the petitioner. The charge so framed, was read over and explained to the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 7. At the stage of trial, the prosecution side produced two prosecution witnesses for examination. The said two prosecution witnesses were examined-in-chief and the next date was fixed for cross-examination of the said two prosecution witnesses by the defence. However, on the date fixed cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence filed a petition, Petition no. 100/2010 raising an objection against the procedure adopted in examining the prosecution witnesses. It was contended that the case ought to have been treated as a case ‘Instituted otherwise than on Police Report’ and the prosecution witnesses ought to have been examined before framing of the charge against the accused. 8. 100/2010 raising an objection against the procedure adopted in examining the prosecution witnesses. It was contended that the case ought to have been treated as a case ‘Instituted otherwise than on Police Report’ and the prosecution witnesses ought to have been examined before framing of the charge against the accused. 8. By an Order dated 25.05.2010, the Special Court dismissed Petition no. 100/2010 finding no merit therein. The Order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the Special Court was made subject-matter of challenge in a criminal petition, registered and numbered as Criminal Petition no. 274/2010, before this Court invoking inherent powers under Section 482 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ and/or ‘CrPC’, for short]. This Court had observed that the Special Court while holding the trial, would be required to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of warrant cases by Magistrates in respect of cases ‘Instituted otherwise than on Police Report’. The provisions contained in the NDPS Act were considered. It was observed that the Report submitted to the Special Court by the Investigating Officer of the DRI was not a Police Report within the meaning of Section 173 , CrPC. The Report submitted by the Officers of the DRI being a complaint within the meaning of Section 2[d], CrPC and the same being submitted under Section 190 , CrPC for the purpose of taking cognizance, the entire proceedings on such Report would be guided by the provisions of Section 244 to Section 247 [both inclusive] of Chapter-XIX of the Code. The criminal petition was disposed of by a Judgment dated 21.09.2010 holding that the procedure adopted by the Special Court was illegal. Consequently, the Order dated 25.05.2010 as well as the Order framing charge against the petitioner on 02.01.2009 were set aside and quashed. The Special Court was directed to follow the procedure prescribed under Chapter-XIX of the Code [ Section 244 to Section 250 , CrPC]. 9. After Criminal Petition no. 274/2010 was so allowed by the Judgment dated 21.09.2010, the Union of India carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court assailing the same. The appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal no. 950/2012 [ Union of India vs. Prasupati Prasad Shukla ]. It was on 14.02.2024, the said criminal appeal came up for consideration. 9. After Criminal Petition no. 274/2010 was so allowed by the Judgment dated 21.09.2010, the Union of India carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court assailing the same. The appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal no. 950/2012 [ Union of India vs. Prasupati Prasad Shukla ]. It was on 14.02.2024, the said criminal appeal came up for consideration. It was submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on behalf of the Union of India on that day that the trial had already been concluded and there was no need to go to the issue raised. Taking note of the submissions so made, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court left the question of law open. It was further observed that it was open for the Special Court to render the Judgment. 10. During the pendency of Criminal Appeal no. 950/2012, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner before the Special Court seeking his release on bail on the ground that the petitioner as an under-trial prisoner had spent more than five years in custody and the offence with which he had been charged with was punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years. The Special Court took note of the fact that the petitioner had been charged under Section 20 [b][ii][C] of the NDPS Act which carries minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. As the petitioner had spent more than five years in jail and the trial of NDPS Case no. 10/2008 did not commence in view of the pendency of the Criminal Appeal no. 950/2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Special Court, in the interest of justice, allowed the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner by directing that the petitioner should be released on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount. It was further ordered that if the accused/petitioner holds a Passport, the same shall be deposited before the Special Court. It was further provided that the petitioner shall, after being released on bail, present himself at the concerned Police Station/Customs Office which had prosecuted him, once in a week, unless leave of absence was obtained from the Court. It was also provided that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special Court without permission of the Court. 11. It was further provided that the petitioner shall, after being released on bail, present himself at the concerned Police Station/Customs Office which had prosecuted him, once in a week, unless leave of absence was obtained from the Court. It was also provided that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special Court without permission of the Court. 11. After disposal of Criminal Appeal no. 950/2012 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case records of NDPS Case no. 10/2008 was put up before the Special Court on 29.06.2024. Upon perusal of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Special Court posted the case on 03.07.2024. On 03.07.2024, the Special Court had recorded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had kept the question of law open. As the appeal preferred by the Union of India had been dismissed, therefore the Order dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Gauhati High Court would be enforced and operative and the procedure prescribed under Chapter-XIX of the Code [ Section 244 to Section 250 , CrPC, both inclusive] have to be followed. 12. The Special Court then posted the case on 24.07.2024 by ordering issuance of summons to the petitioner and a notice to his bailor. On 24.07.2024, a Report was placed before the Special Court, stating that the petitioner was not found at his address. The Special Court then ordered for issuance of Bailable Warrant of Arrest [BWA] of Rs. 5,000/- against the petitioner and a fresh notice to the bailor. The next date was posted on 08.08.2024. 13. On 08.08.2024, the Special Court passed the following Order :- 08.08.2024 : NBWA issued against the accused Pasupati Prasad Sukla returned unexecuted. Issue fresh NBWA and proclamation against the accused Pasupati Prasad-Sukla. Notice issued to bailor Ohab Ali returned unexecuted. Issue BWA of Rs. 5000/- against the bailor Ohab Ali. Fixed 21.08.2024 for appearance/report of NBWA and proclamation. 13.1. On 28.10.2024, the following Order was passed declaring the accused petitioner as a proclaimed offender :- 28.10.2024 : Learned counsel for the complainant is present. E.O., SI Monoj Pathak has appeared before the court who is examined and discharged. From the statement of the E.O., it appears that he made several attempts to execute the NBWA, but he could not execute the same as the accused was absconding and accordingly, he kept the warrant in the pending file of P.S. for future execution. E.O., SI Monoj Pathak has appeared before the court who is examined and discharged. From the statement of the E.O., it appears that he made several attempts to execute the NBWA, but he could not execute the same as the accused was absconding and accordingly, he kept the warrant in the pending file of P.S. for future execution. From the statement of E.O, it further appears that the proclamation was served properly as one copy of the same was affixed in the conspicuous place of the locality, another copy was hanged at the notice board of Rangirkhari TOP and the 3rd copy was sent to court with report. Accordingly, from the statement of the E.O., the accused Pasupati Prasad Sukla is declared as proclaimed absconder. Accordingly, the case is filed. 14. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the proceedings of NDPS Case no. 10/2008 did not proceed further during the period when the Order dated 25.05.2010 [supra] and the Judgment dated 21.09.2010 were under challenge before this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court respectively, and the Special Court did not call for appearance of the petitioner before it. It was after dismissal of Criminal Appeal no. 950/2012 by the Order dated 14.02.2024, the proceedings of NDPS Case no. 10/2008 proceeded further to the next stage. 15. It is noticed that on 24.07.2024, a Report was placed before the Special Court that summons could not be served to the petitioner stating that he was not found at his address. On the basis of such report, the Special Court decided to issue BWA against the petitioner. But on the next date - 08.08.2024, the Special Court had recorded that the NBWA issued against the petitioner returned without execution. It is not reflected from the Order-Sheet that the Special Court, at any point of time earlier to 08.08.2024, had ordered for issuance of NBWA against the petitioner. But, on 08.08.2024, the Special Court again ordered for issuance of fresh NBWA and proclamation against the accused-petitioner. The next date was fixed on 21.08.2024. On finding that NBWA and proclamation was issued against the petitioner were not returned, the Special Court ordered issuance of a reminder on 21.08.2024 fixing the next date on 13.09.2024. 16. But, on 08.08.2024, the Special Court again ordered for issuance of fresh NBWA and proclamation against the accused-petitioner. The next date was fixed on 21.08.2024. On finding that NBWA and proclamation was issued against the petitioner were not returned, the Special Court ordered issuance of a reminder on 21.08.2024 fixing the next date on 13.09.2024. 16. The provisions for publication of written proclamation in respect of a person absconding and issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons are contained in Section 84 and Section 90 respectively of the BNSS . For ready reference, Section 84 and Section 90 of the BNSS is quoted hereinbelow :- 84 . Proclamation for person absconding. [1] If any Court has reason to believe [whether after taking evidence or not] that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. [2] The proclamation shall be published as follows:- [i] [a] it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; [b] it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; [c] a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house; [ii] the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. [3] A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause [i] of sub-section [2], shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. [3] A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause [i] of sub-section [2], shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. [4] Where a proclamation published under sub-section [1] is in respect of a person accused of an offence which is made punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more, or imprisonment for life or with death under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or under any other law for the time being in force, and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. [5] The provisions of sub-sections [2] and [3] shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section [4] as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section [1]. 90. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons. A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Sanhita to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest— [a] if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or [b] if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure. 17. The provisions of Section 84 and Section 90 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [ BNSS ] are similar to the provisions of Section 82 and Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short]. 18. 17. The provisions of Section 84 and Section 90 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [ BNSS ] are similar to the provisions of Section 82 and Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short]. 18. Finding that in many cases, Warrant of Arrests [BWA or NBWA] are issued casually and mechanically, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others , [2007] 12 SCC 1 , has observed in the following manner :- Personal liberty and the interest of the State 50. Civilised countries have recognised that liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration of Independence, 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen, 1789, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966 all speak with one voice—liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. 51. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants. * * * * * * * * * When non-bailable warrants should be issued 53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when: it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or · the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or · it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately. 54. As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. * * * * * * * * * 56. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. * * * * * * * * * 56. The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided. 57. The court should try to maintain proper balance between individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State while issuing non-bailable warrant. 19. Following Inder Mohan Goswami [supra] the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs State of Maharashtra and another , [2012] 9 SCC 791 , has proceeded to observe as under :- 10. It needs little emphasis that since the execution of a non-bailable warrant directly involves curtailment of liberty of a person, warrant of arrest cannot be issued mechanically but only after recording satisfaction that in the facts and circumstances of the case it is warranted. The courts have to be extra-cautious and careful while directing issue of non- bailable warrant else a wrongful detention would amount to denial of constitutional mandate envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, there is no gainsaying that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. Therefore, in order to maintain the rule of law and to keep the society in functional harmony, it is necessary to strike a balance between an individual's rights, liberties and privileges on the one hand, and the State on the other. Indeed, it is a complex exercise. As Cardozo, J. puts it “on the one side is the social need that crime shall be repressed. On the other, the social need that law shall not be flouted by the insolence of office. There are dangers in any choice.” [ Ed. Indeed, it is a complex exercise. As Cardozo, J. puts it “on the one side is the social need that crime shall be repressed. On the other, the social need that law shall not be flouted by the insolence of office. There are dangers in any choice.” [ Ed. : As observed by Cardozo, J. in People v. Defore, 242 NY 13, at 24 : 150 NE 585, at 589 (1926)] 11. Be that as it may, it is for the court, which is clothed with the discretion to determine whether the presence of an accused can be secured by a bailable or non-bailable warrant to strike the balance between the need of law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of the citizen from highhandedness at the hands of the law-enforcement agencies on the other. The power and jurisdiction of the court to issue appropriate warrant against an accused on his failure to attend the court on the date of hearing of the matter cannot be disputed. Nevertheless, such power has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, having regard, inter alia, to the nature and seriousness of the offence involved; the past conduct of the accused; his age and the possibility of his absconding. (Also see State of U.P. v. Poosu [ (1976) 3 SCC 1 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 368] .) 20. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, the Special Court had ordered for issuance of only BWA on 24.07.2024 recording that the Report placed before it stated that the petitioner was not found at his address. But, on 08.08.2024, the Special Court had recorded that NBWA issued against the accused had returned unexecuted, without there being any previous order for issuance of NBWA. Surprisingly, the Special Court on 08.08.2024, apart from ordering issuance of fresh NBWA, also ordered for publication of proclamation against the accused. 21. The condition precedent for initiation of an action under Section 84 , BNSS is prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the concerned Court. A plain reading of Section 84 [1], BNSS shows that before ordering for publication of a proclamation, the Court should have reasons to believe [whether after taking evidence or not] that a person against whom warrant was issued has absconded or is concealing himself and that the warrant cannot be executed. A plain reading of Section 84 [1], BNSS shows that before ordering for publication of a proclamation, the Court should have reasons to believe [whether after taking evidence or not] that a person against whom warrant was issued has absconded or is concealing himself and that the warrant cannot be executed. Proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS may be issued only when a Court has reason to believe that a person against who warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed. It is only after arriving at such satisfaction, the Court may proceed to publish a written proclamation. The satisfaction could be subjective but it cannot be without any material basis. Only after recording such satisfaction, the Court can direct publication of a written proclamation requiring such person to appear at a specified place within a specified period. It has been observed in Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar , [2024] SCC OnLine SC 282 , that to reach a satisfaction that a person is absconding, evidence is required to the effect that the person concerned was knowing that he was wanted and also about pendency of warrant of arrest. Such evidence was apparently missing before the Court on 08.08.2024 to reach a satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding despite knowing about the pendency of warrant of arrest. It was not permissible for the Trial Court to simultaneously issue warrant of arrest and proclamation against the petitioner and as such, the order of publication of proclamation under Section 84 , BNSS is contrary to the mandate of law rendering it unsustainable in law. 22. In so far as issuance of NBWAs is concerned, the Court is to be guided by the parameters set forth in Section 90 , BNSS . As per Clause [a] of Section 90 , BNSS , if the Court has reason to believe that the person has absconded or will not obey the summons, the Court is justified to issue a warrant of arrest. Under Section 90 [b], BNSS , if summons is proved to have been duly served on the person and the person has failed to appear without reasonable excuse, the Court would be justified to issue a warrant of arrest to secure such person’s appearance before it. Under Section 90 [b], BNSS , if summons is proved to have been duly served on the person and the person has failed to appear without reasonable excuse, the Court would be justified to issue a warrant of arrest to secure such person’s appearance before it. Every warrant issued by a Court remains in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed. 23. There is nothing in the materials on record and also not in the orders that summons issued earlier were proved to be duly served as per the procedure laid down in the Code. Apparently, none of the two situations envisaged in clause [a] or clause [b] of Section 90 , BNSS seemed to be present before the Court on 08.08.2025 giving it reason to believe that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself. There is no report from Police that it had visited the correct address of the petitioner. It is also not the case of the prosecution/the I.O that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of bail. It has, thus, emerged that the order for issuance of NBWA was not as per the mandate of law. 24. In the case in hand, after issuance of summons by Order dated 03.07.2024, there is nothing on record to infer that the Special Court before directing issuance of either BWA or NBWA for arrest of the accused petitioner, recorded and reached a satisfaction that it believed that the accused-petitioner had absconded or would not obey the summons. 25. It is a settled proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. If an order at the initial stage, like the Order dated 08.08.2024, is bad in law, then all further and other orders, consequent thereto, have to be necessarily set aside. In the above backdrop, this Court finds applicability of the legal maxim, Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus in the case. The legal maxim, Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus means that if the foundation stands removed, structure falls and it applies on all scores in the present case. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others , [2011] 14 SCC 770 , has observed that :- 108. The legal maxim, Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus means that if the foundation stands removed, structure falls and it applies on all scores in the present case. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others , [2011] 14 SCC 770 , has observed that :- 108. In Badrinath v. Govt. of T.N. [ (2000) 8 SCC 395 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 13 : AIR 2000 SC 3243 ] and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam [ (2001) 10 SCC 191 ] this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally. 109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra [ (2005) 3 SCC 422 ] this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. * * * * * * * * * 111. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned being a nullity, cannot be sustained. As a consequence, subsequent proceedings/ orders/FIR/investigation stand automatically vitiated and are liable to be declared non est. 27. The petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition undertaking that he is ready and willing to participate in the further proceeding of NDPS Case no. 10/2008 by appearing in person and by submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court within a short time. It is submitted on his behalf that he has apprehension that before his appearance willingly he might be taken into custody in execution of the NBWAs issued already against him illegally. It has been further submitted that if the NBWAs issued against him are kept in abeyance for a limited period, the same would facilitate the appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court without such apprehension. 28. In view of the discussion made above and for the reasons stated therein, the Order dated 08.08.2024 and the other subsequent and consequent orders issuing NBWAs and P&As are found to be one which cannot stand the scrutiny of law and as such, the same are set aside. 29. 28. In view of the discussion made above and for the reasons stated therein, the Order dated 08.08.2024 and the other subsequent and consequent orders issuing NBWAs and P&As are found to be one which cannot stand the scrutiny of law and as such, the same are set aside. 29. Having regard to the fact of non-appearance of the petitioner in the proceedings of NDPS Case no. 10/2008 till date and the undertaking made by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that in the interests of justice, the petitioner is to be directed to appear before the Trial Court on or before 10.09.2025. It is accordingly directed. 30. If the petitioner appears and submits to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court within such period and prefers an application for bail, the Trial Court shall consider the bail application on its own merits and in accordance with law. A warrant of arrest remains in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed. The case of the petitioner is, therefore, to be treated as one where there is a Bailable Warrant of Arrest of Rs. 5,000/- issued against the petitioner. 31. The instant criminal petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.