JUDGMENT : B. Mohanty, J. - Heard Mr. Jaydeba Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur in 2(a) C.C. 07/2016 so far as it directs issuance of N.B.W. against him. 3. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 18.02.2016 under Annexure-2 so far as it directed issuance of N.B.W. against the petitioner was legally vulnerable inasmuch as it contained no reason for issuance of said N.B.W. According to him, as per the settled principles of law, the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur should have given detailed reasons for passing such an order and since he has not given any reasons, the said order should be quashed. He further submitted that as per the settled principles of law, issuance of non-bailable warrant involves interference with personal liberty, and, therefore, the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur should have been extremely careful before issuing of non-bailable warrant as the same could only be issued to bring a person to court when summon or bailable warrant would be unlikely to have the desired result. He further contended that here instead of issuing of summons or a bailable warrant, straight away the learned Court below has issued non-bailable warrant without recording any reasons. In such background, he prayed that order directing issuance of N.B.W. be set aside. 4. Mr. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel defended the impugned order saying that reason has been given for issuance of N.B.W. as the petitioner has been shown to have been absconding in the P.R. However, on instruction, he submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents except the present case. 5. Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that merely because the petitioner was shown as absconder in the P.R. the same cannot be taken to be a reason for issuing of N.B.W. without anything more, particularly when, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It is well settled that Court should be extremely careful before issuance of non-bailable warrant as the same involves interference with individual liberty. Only when for the sake of larger public interest, it becomes absolutely necessary to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period only, then non-bailable warrant should be issued. It is well settled that Court should be extremely careful before issuance of non-bailable warrant as the same involves interference with individual liberty. Only when for the sake of larger public interest, it becomes absolutely necessary to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period only, then non-bailable warrant should be issued. All these have been highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 . Therein, the Apex Court has delineated as to under what circumstances non-bailable warrant should be issued. The same are quoted hereunder : "53. Non-bailable warrant 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 : 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. 54. 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 the issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The Court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive. 55. In complaint cases, at the first instance, the Court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the Court, in the second instance should issue bailable-warrant. In the third instance, when the Court is full satisfied that the accused is avoiding the Courts proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance of refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants. 56. The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The Court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance of refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants. 56. The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The Court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided. 57. The Court should try to maintain proper balance between individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State while issuing non-bailable warrant." In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order does not show that while passing the order directing issuance of N.B.W., the Court below has kept in mind the above principles as laid down by the Supreme Court. Rather, it appears that the learned Court has issued N.B.W. in a mechanical and routined manner. 6. In such background, the order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur in 2(a) C.C. 07/2016 so far as it directs issuance of N.B.W. against the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, since the petitioner has not yet surrendered before the learned Court below and has approached this Court by invoking its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., he is directed to surrender before the learned Court below on or before 26.04.2016 and if he so advised may move for bail. In the event, such an application is filed, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as the learned J.M.F.C., Ranpur may deem just and proper, if there is no other impediment for granting bail. Final Result : Disposed Of