1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar Camp, Suratgarh, whereby the learned Jude has allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and has summoned the petitioner through warrant of arrest.

2. Relying on the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 251 , the learned counsel has contended that on the first occasion, the Court should have summoned the petitioner rather than issuing warrant of arrest.

3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that since it is a case of offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, a non-bailable offence has been committed. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in issuing of warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties 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 Independen