Non-bailable warrants unjustified when accused regularly attends and offence bailable; guidelines issued to prevent warrant misuse

The SC affirmed the HC's finding that issuance of a non-bailable warrant was manifestly unjustified where the accused regularly attended proceedings and the offence was bailable at the relevant time; attendance could have been secured by summons or a bailable warrant. The SC denied additional monetary compensation, holding existing relief adequate, but confirmed the HC judgment and dismissed the appeal. To prevent misuse of arrest warrants, the SC issued procedural guidelines for courts and police on form, registration, signature, return dates, reporting, inter-jurisdictional procedure and cancellation/recording of non-bailable warrants.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant
2. Execution of Cancelled Warrant by Police Officer
3. Compensation for Wrongful Detention and Humiliation
4. Validity of "Non-Bailable" Terminology in Warrants
5. Guidelines for Issuance and Execution of Warrants

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant
The Supreme Court scrutinized the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the Appellant by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Court observed that the warrant was issued merely due to the Appellant's absence on 7th August 2002, without proper application of mind. The Court emphasized that non-bailable warrants should not be issued mechanically but only after recording satisfaction that it is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court referred to the precedent set in *Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.* (2007) 12 SCC 1, which cautioned courts to strike a balance between societal interests and personal liberty before issuing non-bailable warrants. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the issuance of the non-bailable warrant was manifestly unjustified given the nature of the complaint and the Appellant's regular attendance in court.

2. Execution of Cancelled Warrant by Police Officer
The Court addressed the conduct of Respondent No. 2, the police officer who executed the cancelled warrant. The Court noted that the warrant was executed on a national holiday, despite being cancelled on 12th August 2002. The Court found that Respondent No. 2 acted in collusion with the complainant to humiliate the Appellant publicly. The Court emphasized that any form of degrading treatment falls within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court agreed with the High Court that Respondent No. 2 did not perform his duty responsibly and played with the personal liberty of the Appellant in a high-handed manner.

3. Compensation for Wrongful Detention and Humiliation
The Appellant sought additional compensation for the humiliation and harassment suffered due to the wrongful execution of the cancelled warrant. The Court acknowledged its power to award compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, as established in cases like *Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr.* (1983) 4 SCC 141 and *Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors.* (1993) 2 SCC 746. However, the Court concluded that the Appellant did not deserve further monetary compensation beyond the Rs. 2,000/- already awarded by the High Court. The Court noted that some blame lay with the Appellant for not procuring a copy of the cancellation order promptly.

4. Validity of "Non-Bailable" Terminology in Warrants
The Court addressed the issue of whether courts can issue a warrant termed as "non-bailable," given that such terminology is not found in the Code of Criminal Procedure or Form 2 of the Second Schedule. The Court held that the endorsement of "non-bailable" on a warrant is to facilitate the executing authority and the person against whom the warrant is issued. The Court concluded that the use of the term "non-bailable" does not render the warrant bad in law and rejected the argument against its validity.

5. Guidelines for Issuance and Execution of Warrants
To prevent misuse of arrest warrants and to obviate the possibility of wrongful detention, the Court issued comprehensive guidelines for the issuance and execution of warrants:
- Use of printed and machine-numbered Form No. 2 for issuing warrants.
- Complete particulars of the case to be mentioned on the warrant.
- Full and legible signatures of the presiding judge on the warrant.
- Warrants to be directed to a particular police officer and returnable by a specified date.
- Maintenance of a register for issued warrants, ensuring each warrant is accounted for and returned with a compliance report.
- Clear and cogent reports on executed warrants, forwarded by a superior police officer.
- Strict adherence to procedures for warrants executed beyond jurisdiction.
- Immediate communication of warrant cancellation to the concerned authority.

The Court expected all High Courts to issue directions to subordinate courts to implement these guidelines within six months.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's judgment and emphasizing the need for judicious issuance and execution of warrants to protect individual liberty and prevent misuse of judicial processes.

---