JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri P. Chakravarty and Sri Pranshu Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. By means of this application the applicant has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 24.1.2023 by means of which Non-Bailable Warrant was ordered to be issued and also for quashing the order dated 08.02.2023 by means of which Non-Bailable Warrant as well as the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued by the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 2, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 01/2023, C.B.I. vs. Bhagwati Prasad Verma and Others, arising out of R.C. No. 8(A)/2014, u/s 120B/409, 420, 511 IPC and section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. CBI/ACB, Lucknow.

3. At the very outset learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 10.1.2023 whereby the learned trial court has issued bailable warrant against the applicant presuming that despite the summons having been served upon him he did not appear. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that summon has not been served on the petitioner in terms of section 64 Cr.P.C. which provides that if the person whose presence is required in the Court is not present in the house such summon should be served upon any male member of the family but the same has been served upon one female member of the family. If it is presumed for the argument sake that such summon has been served on the family member (Bhabhi) of the applicant and the petitioner did not appear on that summon the learned trial court may issue summons against him but on the basis of presumption that same has been served on the applicant through his relative the bailable warrant should not have been issued against him as this exercise is in derogation of section 64 Cr.P.C.

4. Further, attention has been drawn towards the next date fixed i.e. 24.1.2023. On that date a straightaway Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued without verifying the fact as to whether the applicant has been informed about the date fixed i.e. 24.1.2023 and about the bailable warrant being issued against him on 10.1.2023. Sri Chakravarty has further drawn attention of this Court towards the third order dated 8.2.2023 whereby the learned trial court straightaway issued N.B.W. and proclamation of section 82 Cr.P.C. again without verifying the fact as to whether the applicant is aware about the N.B.W. being issued on 24.1.2023.

5. Sri Chakravarty has placed reliance of the dictum of Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, 2007 AIR SCW 6679 whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated such exercise being adopted by the learned trial court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) has observed that if the appearance of any person/accused person is required before the court concerned, he should have been first issued summons and the court should remain careful on the aspect that if the person concerned has not appeared before the court concerned on the summons when such summons have not been served upon him, however, upon his family member, again summons should have been issued and if the learned trial court is convinced that despite the service of the summons upon the person concerned he is deliberately trying to avoid the process of law, bailable warrant may be issued but before issuing N.B.W. against such person the Court should remain very careful inasmuch as issuing N.B.W. against any accused person directly affects his fundamental right to life and liberty. The Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) has issued guidelines to the effect that under what circumstances the strict process should be issued as under:

“....Personal liberty and the interest of the State Civilized countries have recognized that liberty is the most precious of all the human Personal liberty and the interest of the e State Civilized countries nights The Amer