1. This petition was filed invoking the inherent power under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code), to quash an Order dated 23.10.2014 issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioners, passed in Crime No. 236 of 2014, by the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bengaluru.

2. Relevant facts to decide this petition are that case in Crime No. 236 of 2014 was registered on 12.07.2014 by the Police Inspector, CCB, (Spl. Enquiries), N.T. Pete, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under S.34 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, Ss.79 and 80 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and S.20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioners and six others, who were arrested, were released on bail by the Court below. Investigation of the case has not been completed and final report under S.173 of the Code has not been submitted. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 26, 28 to 31 and 35 to 54, who have been arraigned as accused Nos. 2 to 20, 22 to 27, 29, 31 to 34, 38 to 52 and 54 to 58, are the residents of the State of Gujarat. Petitioner Nos. 27, 32, 33, 34 and 55, who have been arraigned as accused Nos. 30, 35, 36, 37 and 59, are the residents of the State of Rajasthan. After release of all the accused, on bail, the Court below adjourned the case to 23.10.2014. Accused Nos. 28, 60 and 62 having appeared and accused Nos. 1, 21 and 53 having filed application, exemption was granted to them on 23.10.2014. The petitioners, who are the remaining accused, being absent and exemption application having not been filed on their behalf, non-bailable warrants having been ordered to be issued to arrest and produce them, this petition was filed.

3. The case of the petitioners is that though the crime is registered, charge-sheet having not been submitted and when they have been released on bail, there is no necessity for their appearance in the Court, i.e. before filing of the charge-sheet. Petitioners contend that it is only after submission of the charge-sheet and when cognizance is taken and process is issued, there is need for their appearance in the Court. Mr. Amar Correa, learned advocate, vehemently contended that the issuing of non-bailable warrants, even before the final report is filed is contrary to law. He submitted that there being violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, interference with the impugned order is called for.

4. Sri B.T. Venkatesh, learned Additional SPP, did not support the impugned order. He submitted that the petitioners having been enlarged on bail, there is no need for their appearance in the Court, i.e. prior to the taking of cognizance and the issue of process.

5. S.154 of the Code deals with the information to the police and their power to investigate. After completion of investigation, a report in the form prescribed, shall be submitted as per S.173(2). During the course of investigation, where the accused persons are arrested and if they are not released, shall have to be produced before the Court for being kept in police custody or in judicial custody. Where the accused person is released on anticipatory bail under S.438 or on bail under S.437 or 439, even before the charge-sheet is filed, he will be free to be at large.

6. From the above, it is clear that there is no obligation on the part of the accused to appear before the Court before the charge-sheet is filed. Thus, the scheme of the Code makes clear, that where an accused person is released pending investigation of the crime, there is no need for him to appear before the Court, before filing of the charge-sheet. Thus, the issuance of warrants of arrest to the petitioners for their non appearance, even before the charge-sheet is filed, would amount to violation of procedure established by law. Article 21 of the Constitution is violated, since, the direction issued to arrest the accused (who have been enlarged on bail) and produce before the Court, even before the charge-sheet is filed, when there is no