IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-bailable warrants should be issued only if the accused intentionally avoid court proceedings after receiving bailable warrants in bailable offences.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 seeking to set aside the docket order dated 17.04.2023 in C.C.No.1016 of 2017 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts culled out from the complaint are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 and other accused alleging that the petitioners along with others gathered and staged dharna in front of TS Secretariat, NTR Marg, Hyderabad and started raising slogans against the Government of Telangana with the following demands:

a) To fulfill all Government Teacher vacancies.

b) To announce KG to PG Education rules and regulations.

c) To take action on the Private and Corporate Education colleges and schools, who are running against the Government rules and to implement Fees Regulation Act and Laws.

d) To disclose report of Tirupathi Rao Committee.

e) To amend the Right to Education Act and implement it and

f) Strengthen the Government Education colleges by introducing English Medium along with Telugu Medium.

It is further alleged that they obstructed the free flow of traffic, entry and exit of visitors and employees of TS Secretariat, thereby disobeyed the orders of Government of Telangana. Basing on the same, respondent No.2 registered a case in FIR No.260 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the police, after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet and the same is numbered as C.C.No.1016 of 2017 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. It is further contended that the petitioners received summons from the trial Court and the case was posted to 17.04.2023 for appearance of the accused. But due to personal urgency, the petitioners were absent on the said date. Thereafter, the trial Court has issued NBWs against the petitioners in a mechanical manner. It is also contended that in a bailable offence, the trial Court ought to have issued only bailable warrants and Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the petitioners herein are illegal and contrary. Therefore, prayed to set aside the docket order dated 17.04.2023.

5. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:

i) Devendra Kumar Tiwri v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/MP/0399/2023, wherein the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) has held as follows:

“10. In the case in hand, learned trial Court has issued the non-bailable warrants on the very first date of filing of the charge sheet. Which is against the mandate given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid case laws, learned trial Court ought to have issued summons at the very first instance. If after receipt of the report on summons and bailable warrants, Court is of the view that accused is deliberately avoiding the summons, the Court may issue bailable warrant and if bailable warrant has also not given desired result then if Court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the Court proceedings intentionally, the process of issuance of the non bailable warrant should be resorted to.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and well settled position of law, impugned order dated 11.01.2023 directing issuance of the arrest warrant against the applicant at very first instance for securing his appearance is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to issue summons instead of arrest warrant for the appearance of the applicant/accused before the trial Court at first instance.”

ii) Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, MANU/SC/7999/2007, wherein the Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“48. The issuance of non-bailable