ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the order dated 11.1.2023 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, Sirmour, District Rewa whereby upon filing of charge sheet for commission of offence under sections 354 & 354 (A) of IPC and section 9/10 of POCSO Act, 2012, Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge has directed for issuance of arrest warrant for securing the appearance of applicant who was not arrested during trial. Notice under section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. was issued directing him to remain present in the Sirmour Court on 16.12.2021 at the time of filing of charge sheet but he did not turn up.

2. Learned senior counsel has contended that learned trial Court instead of issuing summons at the very first instance of filing charge sheet has directed to issue arrest warrant for securing the prsence of the applicant in the case..

3 . By placing reliance on the judgment of Aman Preet Singh v. CBI through Director, 2021 SCC Online SC 941, Siddharth v. State of UP and another, (2022) 1 SCC 676 and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 learned senior counsel has contended that Supreme Court in aforesaid cases and other cases too invariably issued guidelines that on the very first date of filing charge sheet arrest warrant be not issued against the accused persons for securing their presence and at first instance summons be issued.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the objector as well as learned counsel for the State has submitted that learned trial Court has rightly issued arrest warrant against the applicant as he did not turn up before the trial Court despite service of notice and having due knowledge of filing of charge sheet before the trial Court on a particular date.

5. I have heard rival submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is settled position of law that non-bailable warrants should be issued to bring a person to Court only when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result because the issuance of non-bailable warrants involve interference with the personal liberty. Therefore, the Courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non bailable warrants. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable be issued only after proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, as same involves extremely serious consequences.

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and other [(2007) 12 SCC 1] observed as under :--

“51. 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.

52. 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 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

53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to Court when summons of 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.

54. 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 comp