( 1 ) NOTICE. Mr. Watwani accepts notice on behalf of the respondent State. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned MM issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner on 21st August, 2006. This order reads as under:"accused Naresh absent. Issue NB W against accused Naresh and notice to surety on 15. 5. 2007. Copy of charge-sheet supplied to both accused present today. Put up for scrutiny and charge and appearance of accused Naresh. "according to the petitioner, he had reached the Court in time on that date and his case was listed at Sl. No. 5. On the last date of hearing the learned MM was holding the Court in Court Room No. 26 and later on shifted to Court Room No. 21. Under the impression that his case is in Court Room No. 26 the petitioner went to Court room No. 26. However, when his case was not called till 10. 30 a. m. he contacted his Counsel and was informed that the Court is shifted to Court Room No. 21. The petitioner along with his Counsel reached the Court of the learned MM at about 10. 40 a. m. when it was learnt that the matter has been adjourned for 15th May, 2007. However, at that time the petitioner or his Counsel could not find out as to what exact order was passed. After ascertaining the exact order the petitioner appeared through his Counsel and moved an application for cancellation of non-bailable warrants on the same date. Learned MM has simply adjourned this application to 28th August, 2006 and his repeated requests for staying the execution of the non-bailable warrants was also turned down by the Trial Court. Facing threat of arrest, the petitioner has approached his Court.

( 2 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid narration of facts that petitioner had appeared in the Court on 21st August, 2006 when the matter was fixed which would be manifest from the move on the part of the petitioner in filing the application for cancellation of non-bailable warrants on the same date. It is also apparent that the non-bailable warrants were issued on the first call itself and much before 10. 40 a. m. When the petitioner appeared with his Counsel he learnt that the case has been adjourned to 15th May, 2007. On approaching the Court on the same date and giving the aforesaid explanation because of which petitioner could not appear when the case was called out as he was standing outside the Court No. 26, I fail to understand as to why the learned MM did not consider it to be a genuine ground and pass the orders cancelling the non-bailable warrants there and then.

( 3 ) IT may also be borne in mind that this order was passed in the morning itself. One has to bear in mind the provisions of Rule 3 of Chapter 1, part-C (i) in Part-III of Delhi High Court Rules which read as under:"rule 3. Warrant should not be issued unless absolutely necessary-Great care should be taken not to issue a warrant when a summon should be sufficient for the ends of justice. Magistrate should remember that the issue of a warrant involves interference with the personal liberty of a person and should take care to see that no greater hardship is caused than is necessary. Under Section 76 of the Code (now Section 71 of new Code)a Court has the discretion to make the warrant bailable, and this discretion should be exercised with due regard to the nature of the offence, the position of the accused person and the circumstances of the case. "

( 4 ) THE Trial Courts are, therefore, not supposed to take extreme step of issuing non-bailable warrants on the very first call and in the pre-lunch hours. In spite of the aforesaid rule and reiterating of the legal position by this Court in the case of puneet Singh Chauhan A Anr. v. State and Anr. , 107 (2003) DLT 220, wherein it is observed that the Trial Courts are acting contrary to the aforesaid mandate of law. Such orders are passed indiscriminately and number of cases are coming up to this Court.

( 5 ) NO doubt, if an accused tries to evad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document