Judgment : Admit. Mr. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Criminal Original Petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The respondent herein filed a charge sheet against the petitioner before the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore for the alleged offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge sheet was filed before the said Court on 16. 2008. The respondent had requested for issuance of process against the petitioner, since he had not been arrested pending investigation. 3. The learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, after taking the charge sheet to file as Special C.C.No.13 of 2008, directed the case to be posted on 110. 2008 and further directed to issue a Non-bailable Warrant to the accused. Pursuant to the said order, a Non-Bailable Warrant had been issued against the petitioner. Hence the petitioner filed Special Crl.M.P.No.333 of 2008 in the Special C.C.No.13 of 2008 under Section 70(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure to recall the Non-bailable Warrant issued against him. The said petition has been dismissed by the said Judge by his order dated 110. 2008 and being aggrieved by that, the above Criminal Original Petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent himself while filing the charge sheet had requested for issuance of process only but the learned Special Judge has directed to issue a Non-bailable Warrant against the petitioner without even arriving at a satisfaction as to whether at the first instance the summons should be issued or a bailable or Non-bailable Warrant should be issued after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is very well available in the address mentioned in the charge sheet and he was also appearing before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Coimbatore in C.C.No.782 of 2006 and as such, it cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination that the petitioner was evading the process of the Court. In such circumstances, when the petitioner had approached the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore to recall the Non-bailable Warrant issued as against him, the same should have been recalled. 5. In such circumstances, when the petitioner had approached the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore to recall the Non-bailable Warrant issued as against him, the same should have been recalled. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further that though it is not stated by the investigating officer in the charge sheet that the petitioner was absconding, yet the learned Judge has stated in the order that considering the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner has not been granted bail earlier, it was necessary to issue Non-bailable Warrant, and on that ground the learned Special Judge refused to recall the warrant. The aforesaid reasoning of the learned Judge, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is against the well settled principles of law. 6. On the aforesaid submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent was heard. He fairly submitted that the respondent himself had not sought for issuance of warrant but only prayed for issuance of process. 7. I have carefully considered the said submissions made on either side. 8. The undisputed facts are the pending investigation, the petitioner was not arrested and after filing of the charge sheet, no summon was issued and as such the petitioner had no knowledge about the pendency of the case before the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore; the respondent-investigating officer had not sought for any issuance of warrant and as observed by the learned Special Judge himself in his order that the Investigating Officer had not stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner was absconding and in such circumstances, the very issuance of Non-bailable Warrant against the petitioner was uncalled for. 9. In this context, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others. (2007) 5 CTC 614, wherein in paragraphs 49 to 53, it is laid down as under: “49. Civilized countries have recognized that liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration of Independence, 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen, 1789, Universal Declaration of Human rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966 all speak with one voice-liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. The American Declaration of Independence, 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen, 1789, Universal Declaration of Human rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966 all speak with one voice-liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 50. The issuance of Non-bailable Warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the Courts have to be extremely careful before issuing Non-bailable Warrants. 51. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilized society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the Public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period, only then the Non-bailable Warrants should be issued. When non-bailable warrants should be issued. 52. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to Court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when: it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in Court; or the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately. 53. As far as possible, if the Court is of the opinion 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 which ensure on issuance of warrants. The Court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.” 10. The aforesaid legal principles laid down by the Apex Court has not been kept in mind by the learned Special Judge, before ordering issuance of Non-bailable Warrant against the petitioner. The Court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.” 10. The aforesaid legal principles laid down by the Apex Court has not been kept in mind by the learned Special Judge, before ordering issuance of Non-bailable Warrant against the petitioner. At least, when the petitioner had moved for recalling the Non-bailable Warrant, the learned Special Judge should have considered the request of the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid legal principles laid down by the Apex Court. But, that too also has not been done by the learned Special Judge. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore refusing to recall the warrant issued against the petitioner cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is set aside. The Non-bailable Warrant issued against the petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore dated 110. 2008 is directed to be recalled. The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in respect of Spl.C.C.No.13 of 2008 on 12. 2008 without fail. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.