SACHIN DHADIWAL Vs. NARAYAN AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in a prosecution lodged by the respondent in a private complaint for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, though bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner, but they were never served to him and without considering that vide impugned order dated 27/10/2018, non-­bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner which is ex facie illegal and bad in law in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.1 (2007) 12 SCC 1 and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

(3.) In the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in unmistakable terms that issuance of non-­bailable warrants actually interferes with personal liberty and therefore courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-­bailable warrant and laid down the principles, when non-­bailable warrants should be issued which state as under :-­ "Non-­bailable warrants should be issued to bring a person to court when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when: