TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes judicial discretion in preferring summons over non-bailable warrants</h1> The Supreme Court modified the Trial Court and High Court orders, directing the issuance of summons instead of non-bailable warrants against the ... Insuring attendance of the appellant before the Court - Issue of Bailable Warrant & summons before issuance of Non-bailable Warrant - Power of the Court – HELD THAT - The power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C 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 likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided. Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The issuance of non-bailable warrant involves interference with personal liberty. Orders passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court modified, and direct that summons be issued against the appellant for his appearance instead of non- bailable warrants which were ordered to be issued against him. Issues:- Issuance of non-bailable warrant instead of bailable warrant under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.Analysis:The appeal was directed against an order passed by the High Court dismissing a petition filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The incident involved the abduction of the complainant's daughter by the accused persons. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused and, based on evidence, took cognizance of the appellant's involvement in the offence. The appellant filed an application to convert the non-bailable warrant into a bailable one, which was rejected by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. The main issue was whether the attendance of the appellant could have been secured by a summon or a bailable warrant instead of a non-bailable one under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.The Supreme Court analyzed Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for judicial discretion and circumspection by the Trial Court while exercising its powers. The Court highlighted the importance of protecting personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution and the duty of judges to promote citizens' liberty. Referring to legal principles and previous judgments, the Court stressed that the issuance of non-bailable warrants should be done sparingly and with extreme care to avoid impairing personal liberty.The Court discussed the distinction between bailable and non-bailable offences, emphasizing that the discretion to grant bail in non-bailable offences should be judicial and based on the facts of each case. It reiterated that the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. should be judiciously exercised, balancing personal liberty and societal interests. The Court outlined conditions for issuing non-bailable warrants, stating that they should only be used when other methods like summons or bailable warrants are unlikely to produce the desired result. The Court concluded that in complaint cases, summons or bailable warrants should be preferred over non-bailable warrants, unless specific circumstances justify the latter.In the final judgment, the Supreme Court modified the orders of the Trial Court and High Court, directing that summons be issued against the appellant for appearance instead of non-bailable warrants. The Criminal appeal was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
