Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The present petition is filed against the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Judge has issued process against the petitioners and against one Gurmukh Singh, while invoking his power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that complainant Baljeet Kaur lodged a report against petitioners and others at P.S. Gajsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar on 27.08.2007 wherein she claimed that on 26.08.2007 at 11:00 PM the accused-petitioners and one Gurmukh Singh came armed with weapons and had taken away with them Sukhpal despite her resisting. Gagandeep went behind them and saw the accused persons giving beating to Sukhpal and narrated the whole incident to her. In the morning, dead body of Sukhpal was found. On the basis of said report, FIR was lodged and police filed chargesheet against Bhupinder Singh and submitted Final Report against petitioners. During trial, the prosecution examined its witnesses. Thereafter, the complainant, Baljeet Kaur, moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the trial Court has taken taken cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 16.12.2011. Hence this petition before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted his contentions only to the point that while issuing process, the learned Judge has issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioners. According to him, at the first instance, the learned Judge should have issued summons or bailable warrant. Moreover, the learned Judge has issued arrest warrant against Gurmukh Singh. However, according to the death certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, 56-F, Panchayat Samiti Sri Karanpur, Gurmukh Singh has expired on 11.02.2008. Therefore, the warrant of arrest has been issued against a person who is already dead. Therefore, he has requested that the arrest warrant may be converted into bailable warrant. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Lal Suraj alias Sujra Singh & Anv. vs. State of Jharkhan (2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1).

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. O.P. Rathi, for the complainant respondent No.2, Baljeet Kaur, have vehemently contended that since the case is for offence under Section 302 IPC, the learned Judge was certainly justified in issuing arrest warrant against the petitioners. As far as Gurmukh Singh is concerned, they have claimed that a verification needs to be made by the police with regard to his alleged death. Therefore, it is too early in the day to claim that the learned Judge has issued arrest warrant against a person who is already dead.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (AIR 2008 SC 251), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

Personal liberty and the interest of the State

Civilized countries have recognized 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 civilized society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the Public a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document