MP High Court Quashes Non-Bailable Warrant Issued At Very First Instance Seeking Presence Of Accused, Says It’s Against Mandate Of Law

The bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal observed that issuing the non-bailable warrants on the very first date of filing of the charge-sheet is against the settled position of law-

It is settled position of law that non-bailable warrants should be issued to bring a person to Court only when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result because the issuance of non-bailable warrants involve interference with the personal liberty. Therefore, the Courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non bailable warrants. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable be issued only after proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, as same involves extremely serious consequences.

Facts of the case were that the Applicant was accused of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354 (A) of IPC and Sections 9, 10 of POCSO Act. When the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case, the trial court immediately issued a non-bailable warrant against the Applicant, seeking his presence. The Warrant was issued at the very first instance to secure the presence of the Applicant. Aggrieved, the Applicant moved the Court.

The Applicant submitted before the Court that the impugned order was bad in law and ran contrary to the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court with respect to the subject concerned. Per contra, the State asserted that there were no infirmities in the order passed by the court below.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the arguments of the Applicant. After considering the position taken by the Apex Court on the issue, it opined that the trial court ought to have issued summons to the Applicant rather than issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant straightaway to secure his presence for the proceedings-

In the case in hand, learned trial Court has issued the non-bailable warrants on the very first date of filing of the charge sheet. Which is against the mandate given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid case laws, learned trial Court ought to have issued summons at the very first instance. If after receipt of the report on summons and bailable warrants, Court is of the view that accused is deliberately avoiding the summons, the Court may issue bailable warrant and if bailable warrant has also not given desired result then if Court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the Court proceedings intentionally, the process of issuance of the non bailable warrant should be resorted to.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court set aside the impugned order, thereby quashing the non-bailable warrant issued against the Applicant. It directed the Applicant to appear before the trial court on the next date of hearing. If he failed to do so, the lower court would be at liberty to issue summons for his appearance. The Court clarified that in case the Applicant did not show up even after the service of summons, the trial court would be at liberty to take coercive action against him to secure his presence.