Before granting non-bailable warrants, courts should strike a compromise between societal needs and personal liberties, and they should use their authority with caution: Jharkhand High Court

Owing to the exceedingly dangerous repercussions and implications that follow the issuing of warrants, both bailable or non-bailable, warrants can never be released without sufficient review of evidence and full application of mind. The court must look at whether the criminal charge or FIR was brought with an oblique intent in mind. The judgement was passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Gouri Devi & Ors. vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr. [Cr. M.P. No. 2719 of 2020] by Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi.

The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the order passed in SC/ST Case arising out of Barkatha P.S. Case and also for quashing the order, whereby processes under section 82 Cr.PC has been directed to be issued.

The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by ordering the court below has taken cognizance against the accused persons and by the said order without issuing the summons straightway directed to issue a non-bailable warrant. He submits that this is not the only illegality but the trial court further proceeded without receiving the execution report of the non-bailable warrant and passed the order whereby process 2 under section 82 Cr.PC has been directed to be issued. He submits that this has been done without following the due process of law and the persons’ liberty has been directed to be curtailed given the said order without following the process of law.

The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that the due process has not been followed by the court.

The court while relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. the State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held that “before issuing non-bailable warrants, the courts should strike a balance between societal interests and personal liberty and exercise its discretion cautiously.”

While allowing the petition the court held that “if the court believes that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications that ensue on the issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the criminal complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.”

Click here for the Judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *