Issuance of non-bailable warrants must be justified by sufficient reasons; personal liberty must be balanced with societal interests, especially during extraordinary circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 401 and Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 142 - Non-bailable warrants issued against accused in a complaint case. The court emphasized that issuance of non-bailable warrants must strike a balance between personal liberty and societal interest, especially during extraordinary circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The absence of accused was deemed unintentional and the warrants were cancelled upon their undertaking to appear before the trial court. They were directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000 each. (Paras 1, 12, 13, 14).

(B) Judicial Discretion - The court ruled that the power to issue non-bailable warrants should be exercised judiciously, requiring proper justification for curtailing personal liberty. The mere fact of residing outside the jurisdiction was not sufficient grounds for exemption from appearance. (Paras 10, 12, 14).

Facts of the case:
The petitions were filed to challenge the issuance of NBWs against the petitioners due to their absence in court. They claimed unintentional absence stemming from residing outside Delhi and provided undertakings to appear in future hearings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court failed to record justification for NBWs given the circumstances, leading to their cancellation.

Issues: Whether the trial court justified the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the accused and the grounds for their exemption from appearance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-bailable warrants may only be issued upon showing sufficient grounds to believe that an accused will evade court proceedings or cause harm, emphasizing protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Result: The petitions were disposed of, and the NBWs were set aside subject to the payment of costs.

Table of Content
1. filing of petitions against nbws. (Para 1)
2. petitioners' unintentional absence and undertakings. (Para 2 , 3)
3. submissions regarding personal appearance exemption. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. trial court's justification for nbws issuance. (Para 7)
5. judicial discretion in issuing non-bailable warrants. (Para 8 , 9)
6. factors weighing against issuing nbws. (Para 10 , 11)
7. balancing personal liberty with societal interests. (Para 12 , 13)
8. set aside nbws upon payment of costs. (Para 14)
9. petitioners bound by undertakings. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)--The present petitions have been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners assailing the order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 417/2019 filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby non-bailable warrants (hereinafter, referred to as 'NBWs') were issued against them.

2. Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the absence of the petitioners before the Trial Court was unintentional. It is further submitted that the petitioners have filed their respective undertakings by way of affidavits before this Court, in terms of which they have undertaken to appear before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing, i.e. 02.06.2022.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, on instructions, submits that in view of the undertakings given on behalf of the petitioners, respondent No.1 has no objection in case the NBWs issued against them are cancelled.

4. It is noted that three petitions, being CRL.M.Cs. 266/2021, 267/2021 and 268/2021, have been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the Complaint Case No. 417/2019, wherein the impugned order dated 27.11.2021 came to be passed.

5. A perusal of the order sheets in the aforesaid cases would show that on 22.11.2021, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners were not residents of Delhi. Pursuant thereto, it was directed that relevant application seeking exemption from personal appearance be filed before the concerned Trial Court, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

6. On 27.11.2021, separate applications seeking exemption from personal appearance were moved before the Trial Court on behalf of the petitioners, stating that they resided outside Delhi and it would be difficult for them to travel to Delhi and appear before the Court under the circumstances.

7. The said applications came to be heard on the same day and the Court observed:

"...Today an exemption has been moved on behalf of accused no. 3,4 and 5. None has appeared on behalf of remaining accused persons. Grounds made out in the exemption application do not reflect any justifiable reasons for not appearing in court simply because they are not residents of Delhi. Admittedly as per submissions of Ld. Counsel for accused, there is no stay on the present proceedings/quashing petition pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In view thereof, no cogent grounds are made out to allow the exemption.

xxx

In view thereof, considering that matter has been languishing at the hands of the accused persons who have already got their warrants cancelled on previous dates without furnishing any bail bond and surety bond, issue NBW against all accused persons..."

8. On the aspect of issuance of NBWs against an accused, the Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported as (2012) 9 SCC 719, has observed as follows:

"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-cauti