Anticipatory bail and personal liberty require summons-first procedure before resorting to a non-bailable warrant in complaint cases.

In complaint cases, a non-bailable warrant should not be issued mechanically at the first instance; the normal sequence is summons, then bailable warrant, and only then a non-bailable warrant as a last resort to secure appearance. The Court applied the principle that powers affecting personal liberty must be exercised with circumspection and balanced against Article 21. Because the non-bailable warrant had been issued straightaway without first exhausting the lesser processes, that course was held impermissible on the facts, and anticipatory bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where, in a complaint case, the accused was proceeded against by issuance of a non-bailable warrant without first exhausting summons and bailable warrant.

Analysis: The power to issue warrants affecting personal liberty must be exercised judiciously and with circumspection. In complaint cases, the normal sequence is summons, then bailable warrant, and only thereafter non-bailable warrant as a last resort when the accused avoids appearance or there is a real need to secure attendance. The Court relied on the settled principle that personal liberty under Article 21 must be balanced against societal interest, and that a non-bailable warrant should not be issued mechanically at the first instance.

Conclusion: The straightaway issuance of the non-bailable warrant was held impermissible on the facts, and anticipatory bail was granted.

---