Non-bailable warrants should not be issued mechanically; courts must exercise careful scrutiny and ensure that sufficient grounds exist for their issuance to protect personal liberty.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to quash the orders dated 29.06.2022 and 04.07.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur in G.R. Case No.469 of 2022 corresponding to Baidyanathpur P.S. Case No.60 of 2022.

2. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 29.06.2022 is liable to be set aside as it has been passed mechanically on the prayer of the I.O. and N.B.W. has been issued on the ground that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 /294/323/506 of I.P.C. which is misconceived.

3. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & another vs. State of Uttaranchal & others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that N.B.W. could not have been mechanically issued when the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by the learned Magistrate First Class.

4. Order dated 04.07.2022 reveals that after perusal of the case diary and other connected papers and being satisfied that a prima facie case exists for proceeding against the petitioner, cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 341 /294/323/506 of I.P.C. has been taken.

Perusal of the FIR reveals that the petitioner has been named in the FIR and the allegations in the FIR are sufficient for taking cognizance of the offences. So, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 04.07.2022 so far as it relates to taking of cognizance of the offences.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) has held as follows:

……“47. Before parting with this appeal, we would like to discuss an issue which is of great public importance, i.e., how and when warrants should be issued by the Court? It has come to our notice that in many cases bailable and non-bailable warrants are issued casually and mechanically. In the instant case, the court without properly comprehending the nature of controversy involved and without exhausting the available remedies issued non-bailable warrants. The trial court disregarded the settled legal position clearly enumerated in the following two cases.

48. In Omwati v.State of UP & Another (2004) 4 SCC 425, this court dealt with a rather unusual matter wherein the High Court firstly issued bailable warrants against the appellant and thereafter by issuing non- bailable warrants put the complainant of the case behind bars without going through the facts of the case. This Court observed that the unfortunate sequel of such unmindful orders has been that the appellant was taken into custody and had to remain in jail for a few days, but without any justification whatsoever. She suffered because facts of the case were not considered in proper perspective before passing the orders. The court also observed that some degree of care is supposed to be taken before issuing warrants.

49. In State of U.P. v. Poosu & Another (1976) 3 SCC 1 at para 13 page 5, the Court observed: “13…..Whether in the circumstances of the case, the attendance of the accused respondent can be best secured by issuing a bailable warrant or non- bailable warrant, is a matter which rests entirely in the discretion of the court. Although, the discretion is exercised judicially, it is not possible to computerize and reduce into immutable formulae the diverse considerations on the basis of which this discretion is exercised. Broadly speaking, the court would take into account the various factors such as, the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances peculiar to the accused, possibility of his absconding, larger interest of the