IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPLAINT NO. 2 OF 2016 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 875 OF 2014 Sagar Choudhary And Another ...Applicant/Respondent No.1 In the matter of :

M/s. Anjali Travels & Tours ...Petitioner The Official Liquidator Of M/s Sporting Ace. Pvt.ltd. ...Applicant Versus Sagar Choudhary And Anr. ...Defendants _______

Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, a/w Mr. Kayush Zaiwala, a/w Ms. Simran Kasat & Mr.

Gaurav Suryawanshi i/b ANM Global for Accused No. 1 Ms. Akanksh Agrawal for Official Liquidator.

Mr. Satyajit Roul, Official Liquidator.

Mr. Anil Bhagure, Deputy Official Liquidator.

_______

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

DATE : 21st NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.

1. The Interim Application seeks the following substantial relief which reads thus:

“(a) Recall the orders dated 1 August 2025 and 20 September 2025 passed by this Hon 'ble Court and cancel the Bailable Warrant dated l August 2025 and Non-Bailable Warrant dated 20 September 2025, issued against the Applicant / Accused No. 1, Mr. Sagar Choudhary;”

2. Ms. Agrawal, learned counsel for Official Liquidator, has taken a fair stand that the Official Liquidator does not wish to file any affidavit in reply to contest the present Interim Application. She concedes that there has been some inadvertence on the aspect of whether the summons was served upon the accused.

3. Having perused the Interim Application, I am satisfied that the same has not been duly served.

4. Mr. Kamat, learned counsel for Accused No.1, placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.1 , on the aspect of when a non-bailable warrant should be issued, which records as follows:

“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 complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive. 55. In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable-

1 (2007) 12 SCC 1 warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the courts proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non- bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-

bailable warrants.

56. The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straight- jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided.

57. The Court should try to maintain proper balance between individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State while issuing non-bailable war