The central legal point established is the need to exercise caution and follow the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in warrant issuance, emphasizing the issuance and service of bailable warrants before resorting to nonbailable warrants.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in a prosecution lodged by the respondent in a private complaint for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC , though bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner, but they were never served to him and without considering that vide impugned order dated 27/10/2018, nonbailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner which is ex facie illegal and bad in law in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., (2007) 12 SCC 1 and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

3. In the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in unmistakable terms that issuance of nonbailable warrants actually interferes with personal liberty and therefore courts have to be extremely careful before issuing nonbailable warrant and laid down the principles, when nonbailable warrants should be issued which state as under :

''Nonbailable warrants should be issued to bring a person to court when summons of 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;

* the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon;

* it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately.''

In the later part of judgment, Their Lordships cautioned the criminal court to refrain from issuing nonbailable warrant of arrest at first instance by directing as under :

''In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the courts proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the nonbailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing nonbailable warrants.''

Their Lordships while concluding, emphasized the need of striking proper balance between individual personal liberty and societal interest/interest of public before issuing warrant by making following pertinent observation:

''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 straight jacket 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 nonbailable warrants should be avoided.''

4. In the matter of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2012 (9) SCC 791 it has been held that power and jurisdiction of court to issue appropriate warrant has to be exercised judiciously, striking a balance between the need of law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of citizen from highhandedness at the hands of the law enforcement agencies on the other. Paragraph of report states as under :

''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 nonbailable 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