1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Pooran Singh & Anr. V/s. State of Rajasthan. (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.474/2010) S.B. CR. MISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Date of Order :: May 25, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Anil Upman for the petitioners. Mr. Javed Chaudhary PP for the State. Aggrieved by the issuance of warrant of arrest by the learned trial Court on 05.06.2002, aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioners under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., for converting the warrant of arrests into bailable warrant, the petitioners have approached this Court. The facts of the case are that one Mr. Nemi Chand submitted a complaint before the Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bayana, District Bharatpur against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 148, 323, 149, 324, and 307 IPC with regard to the fact that his son, Manoj Kumar, was brutally assaulted by the petitioners and by the other co-accused persons. After investigation, the police submitted a negative Final Report. However, the complainant 2 submitted a protest petition and he and his three witnesses were examined under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 05.06.2002, considering the fact that offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out, the learned trial Court took cognizance for offences under Sections 148, 323, 149, 324 and 308 IPC. In a detailed order, the learned trial Court also observed the fact that the petitioners are police personnels who had dragged the complainant's son to the police station and had brutally assaulted him. The learned trial Court considering the gravity of the offence, considering the factual matrix of the case, directed that warrant of arrest be issued against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they did not know that warrant of arrest had been issued against them till 2010. Once they came to know in the year 2010 that warrant of arrest had been issued against them, they moved an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C.. However, vide order dated 08.03.2010, the learned trial Court has rejected the application. Hence, this petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Anil Upman, has vehemently contended that the liberty is the soul of the Indian Constitution and the heart of democracy. The liberty of an accused cannot be compromised. At the first instance, the 3 learned trial Court should have issued summons for asking the accused to appear before it. In case, the summons were not answered, then the learned trial Court should have issued bailable warrant. It is only as a last resort that the learned trial Court should have issued a warrant of arrest against the accused. However, in the present case, at the very first instance, the learned trial Court issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners. Hence, the learned trial Court has violated Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. V/s. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. [2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 574]. Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Pubic Prosecutor, has contended that the petitioners are police personnels. Therefore, they are supposed to uphold the law and not to violate it. In order to wreck personal vengeance on the complainant's son, Manoj Kumar, they not only intercepted him, but also dragged him into the police station, and allegedly brutally assaulted him along with other co-accused persons. Since the very upholders of law were violating the law, since such an action undermines the faith of the people, a serious view had to be taken by the learned trial Court. Considering the fact that the Police Department had submitted a negative final report in order to save their own colleagues, the learned trial 4 Court was certainly justified in issuing warrant of arrest against the accused petitioners. Although the warrant of arrest had been issued in the year 2002, despite the lapse of eight long years, the warrant of arrest is yet to be executed. It is the discretion of the learned trial Court to issue summons, to issue bailable warrant or to issue non-bailable warrant. Such a discretion should not be interfered with lightly by this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order and considered the case law cited at the Bar. Undoubtedly, liberty is the soul of the Constitution and the heart of democracy. But liberty, like any other fundamental right, is not an absolute one. The said liberty can be deprived provided the procedure established by law is followed. Even Article 21 of the Constitution of India clearly states that the State can deprive the personal liberty of a person provided the procedure established by law is followed. One of the procedure for depriving the liberty is issuance of a non- bailable warrant. It is a procedure established under the Cr.P.C. Considering the fact that the petitioners are police personnels, considering the fact that the petitioners are supposed to uphold the rule of law and are not supposed to violate it, the allegations levelled against them of having dragged and having assaulted the complainant's son in the precincts of the police station are 5 grave allegations. Such an alleged action on the part of the police personnels not only undermines the faith of the people in the police administration, but also induces the people to speak against the State authorities. Considering the allegations made against the police authorities, the learned trial Court was certainly justified in issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioners. The fact that the Police Department has been protecting its own personnels is apparent on the face of the record as despite the lapse of eight long years, the warrant of arrest is yet to be executed. It is, indeed, a shocking state of affairs where the Police Department is bent upon protecting its personnels. In fact, the Police Department should have immediately executing the warrant of arrest and should have produced the petitioners before the learned trial court in order to restore and strengthen the faith of the people in the state authority. The case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) is distinguishable on the fact that the case dealt with an offences under Sections 420, 467 and 120B IPC. The case dealt with those persons are not police personnels. The status of the accused is one of the considerations that has to be taken into account. In the present case, it is the very people who are supposed to uphold the law who have violated the law. Thus, they should also realize the consequences of violating the law. 6 In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-