1. - The learned counsel for the petitioners has made a very limited prayer before this Court. According to him, he is not challenging the impugned order on merit, but merely requests that the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners should be converted into bailable ones.

2. Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi, has contended that when a process is issued under Section 319 Cr.P.C., initially summons should be issued, or at worse bailable warrants should have been issued, instead of issuing non-bailable warrants at the first instance. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., 2008(1) WLC (SC) Cri 34 : AIR 2008 SC 251 .

3. On the other hand, Mrs. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order.

5. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :

Personal liberty and the interest of the State

Civilised countries have recognised that liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration of Independence 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen 1789, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and

Political Rights 1966 all speak with one voice - liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

48. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants.

49. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilised society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the Public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period, only then the non-bailable warrants should be issued.

When non-bailable warrants should be issued

Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons or 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; or

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

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

50. As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.

51. 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 court's proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.

52. The power being discretionary must b