Non-bailable warrants after cognizance are a last resort; bailable process and attendance bonds were sufficient here.

After cognizance on a GST complaint, non-bailable warrants should not be issued at the first instance unless summons or bailable process is unlikely to secure attendance or there is a real risk of evasion or interference with evidence. Here, the accused had participated in investigation and there was no material showing evasion or tampering, so the non-bailable warrants were unsustainable and conversion to bailable warrants was proper. On appearance, the accused was not required to seek regular bail merely because cognizance had been taken; the court could instead require bonds to secure attendance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether non-bailable warrants could be issued at the first instance for securing the accused petitioner's presence after cognizance on a GST complaint, and whether such warrants should be converted into bailable warrants; (ii) whether, upon appearance pursuant to the converted warrants, the petitioner was required to seek regular bail or could be directed only to furnish bonds for securing attendance.

Issue (i): whether non-bailable warrants could be issued at the first instance for securing the accused petitioner's presence after cognizance on a GST complaint, and whether such warrants should be converted into bailable warrants.

Analysis: The proper course, after cognizance on a complaint, is ordinarily to secure appearance by summons or bailable warrants first, and non-bailable warrants are justified only where the accused is likely to evade process, cannot be served, or is likely to tamper with evidence. The petitioner had appeared during investigation, his statement had been recorded, and there was no material showing evasion of process or tampering with evidence. The seriousness of the alleged GST evasion by itself was held insufficient to sustain non-bailable warrants at the first instance.

Conclusion: The issuance of non-bailable warrants at the first instance was unsustainable and was rightly converted into bailable warrants.

Issue (ii): whether, upon appearance pursuant to the converted warrants, the petitioner was required to seek regular bail or could be directed only to furnish bonds for securing attendance.

Analysis: A person who appears before the court pursuant to process issued to secure presence is not to be treated as in custody merely because cognizance has been taken. In such a situation, the court may require execution of bonds to secure attendance, but the matter does not automatically become one for regular bail. The petitioner's assurance to join the proceedings and the absence of any finding of custodial necessity supported this course.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not required to apply for regular bail on such appearance, though the trial court could require bonds to secure his presence.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed, the impugned refusal was set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to appear before the trial court under bailable process with the possibility of bonds for attendance.

Ratio Decidendi: After cognizance on a complaint, non-bailable warrants for securing appearance should be used only as a last resort when summons or bailable process is unlikely to secure attendance or there is a real likelihood of evasion or interference with evidence; mere seriousness of the alleged offence is not enough.

---