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 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 be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should properly balanc