Summons before non-bailable warrant is the ordinary rule for newly added accused under Section 319 CrPC.

Section 319 CrPC confers an extraordinary, discretionary power that must be exercised with circumspection and in line with fair-trial requirements. When securing the attendance of a newly added accused, summons or a bailable warrant should ordinarily be used first, because a non-bailable warrant is a serious interference with personal liberty under Article 21 and should issue at the first instance only where circumstances show likely evasion, refusal to appear, inability to serve process, or risk of harm to others. The Court concluded that issuing a non-bailable warrant initially was unwarranted and that summons ought to have been issued instead.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the attendance of a newly added accused should ordinarily be secured by summons or a bailable warrant before resorting to a non-bailable warrant.

Analysis: Section 319 confers an extraordinary and discretionary power, to be exercised with circumspection and in accordance with fair-trial requirements. The choice of process must balance societal interest with personal liberty protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A non-bailable warrant, being a serious interference with liberty, should not be issued at the first instance unless the circumstances justify a belief that the person is likely to evade process, will not appear voluntarily, cannot be served, or may harm others if not taken into custody. In ordinary cases, summons or a bailable warrant should be preferred first.

Conclusion: The issuance of a non-bailable warrant in the first instance was unwarranted, and summons ought to have been issued instead.

---