JUDGMENT : Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, to assail the order dated 19.02.2020 passed in C.T. Case No. 354(A) of 2014 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 67 of 2021, wherein a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against Petitioner at the instance of the Investigating Officer. I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 24.08.2014 a Written Complaint was submitted by one Sudarsan Sahoo to the I.I.C., Athagarh P.S., alleging that while he was proceeding along Kandarpur road, he observed a large gathering of people gather at a particular spot and saw an unknown person was lying there, bleeding profusely due to an injury to his throat. (ii) When the complainant enquired about the cause of the injury, the Victim disclosed his name and stated that 7 to 8 people had followed and restrained him and his helper while they were travelling to Kolkata after loading aluminum from Angul by truck. (iii) Thereafter, the helper of the truck was killed and his body was thrown into the jungle. The victim’s throat was also cut. Thereupon, the assailants looted the truck and left the injured person at the spot. (iv) Thereafter, an F.I.R. was registered and an investigation was conducted, following which the Investigating Officer submitted a preliminary charge-sheet under Section 396,120B, 307 of I.P.C against three accused persons. (v) Upon submission of the chargesheet, the cognizance was taken against the accused persons. Thereupon, the learned Court below, after considering the prayer of the I.O. had issued NBW against the accused persons vide order dated 19.02.2020. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.02.2020 passed in C.T. Case No. 354(a) of 2014 arising out of corresponding to S.T. Case No. 67 of 2021, whereby a Non- Bailable Warrant is issued against the Petitioner at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (ii) The Petitioner submits that his name of the Petitioner did not figure in the F.I.R. dated 24.08.2014 and that, pursuant to said F.I.R., a preliminary charge-sheet dated 27.12.2014 was submitted by the I.O., wherein the Petitioner was also not shown as an accused person. Accordingly, the Petitioner was never treated as an accused or even as a suspect in the instant case. (iii) The Petitioner states that in the prayer made by the I.O. it was alleged that raids had been conducted at the Petitioner’s residence and that, on several occasions, the Petitioner was avoiding arrest. However, it is contended that no such action was ever taken by the I.O. The Petitioner further states that that prior to the issuance of N.B.W., a summon ought to have been issued to the Petitioner. (iv) The Petitioner further submits that the learned Court below failed to apply its judicious mind while allowing the prayer of the I.O., inasmuch as the final charge-sheet does not contain a single allegation against the Petitioner, nor has any material evidence been placed on record by the I.O. to substantiate that, the Petitioner had any active participation in the alleged offence. (v) The Petitioner further states that he is suffering from a serious cardiac ailment, for which he underwent treatment at Care Hospital from 27.12.2021 to 31.12.2021, and that even after his discharge, he has been regularly taking prescribed medication under the consultation and supervision of the treating doctor. (vi) The Petitioner further states that no summons was issued to him prior to issuance of the NBW to ascertain his availability or cooperation with the investigation, and the said warrant was issued without such prior process. (vi) The Petitioner further states that no summons was issued to him prior to issuance of the NBW to ascertain his availability or cooperation with the investigation, and the said warrant was issued without such prior process. (vii) The Petitioner states that the issuance of a NBW requires satisfaction of the Court of seisin, supported by reasons, that sufficient grounds exist to believe that the person concerned is evading arrest. (viii) In support of his contentions, the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court decision in Sharif Ahemed & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2024 SC 240 , wherein it was stated that “It is a well settled position of law that non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless necessitated by the larger interest of public and the state”. (ix) The Petitioners states that, in view of the settled position of law, he prays that this Court be pleased to allow the instant petition, quash the order dated 19.02.2020 passed in C.T. Case No. 354(a) of 2014 passed by the learned Court seized of the matter, and afford him an opportunity to face its trial and establish his innocence. III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTY 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine. (i) The Opp. Party submits that, on 27.08.2014 at about 9:00 AM, the informant appeared before the Atharagarh P.S. and stated that while he was proceeding from his village towards towards Betakholi, he noticed a gathering of people on the way and found an unknown youth lying with a deep cut injury on his throat and bleeding profusely. (ii) The Opp. Party further submits that, on the previous night, 7 to 8 dacoits intercepted the truck and forcibly dragged the driver and his helper out of the vehicle. Both were tied with rope. Thereafter, the dacoits allegedly killed the helper and threw his dead body into a cashew field. The injured was assaulted and his throat was cut with the intention to cause his death. Both were tied with rope. Thereafter, the dacoits allegedly killed the helper and threw his dead body into a cashew field. The injured was assaulted and his throat was cut with the intention to cause his death. (iii) On such report, the case was registered, and upon completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. (iv) Thereupon, on 27.12.2014, the charge-sheet under Section 396/120(b)/307 of IPC was received, wherein the I.O. prayed for keeping the investigation open. Upon perusal of the case record, a prima-facie case was found to be made out. (v) It is further submitted that the present Petitioner is a resident of the locality and that, on the basis of the allegations, the police mentioned his name in the preliminary charge-sheet. (vi) The Opp. Party contends that, in the interest of substantial justice, non-bailable warrants were issued against the absconding accused persons, and consequently, bail was not granted to him. IV. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 6. In light of the forgoing facts, the Court is of the considered view that the principal issue that arises for determination is whether the Non- Bailable Warrant can be issued in a routine or mechanical manner and whether the Learned courts are required to record specific reasons justifying the issuance of such Non-Bailable Warrants. 7. On the plain reading a Non-Bailable Warrant is a serious coercive process issued by a Court when an individual accused of an offence fails to comply with summons or lawful orders of the Court. Such a warrant is not to be issued as a matter of course and may be restored to only in circumstances warranting such action, inter alia, in the following situations: (i) Where the accused fails appear before the court despite due service of summons or issuance bailable warrants; (ii) Where the Court has reason to believe that the accused is deliberately evading the process of law; (iii) In cases involving serious criminal offences, where there exists a reasonable that the accused is likely to abscond. 8. The execution of a non-bailable warrant directly entails curtailment of the personal liberty of an individual. 8. The execution of a non-bailable warrant directly entails curtailment of the personal liberty of an individual. A warrant of arrest, therefore, cannot be issued in a routine or mechanical manner, but only upon the Court recording its satisfaction that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, such issuance is necessary and justified. The Courts are required to exercise heightened caution and circumspection while directing the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants, as any unwarranted or illegal detention would amount to grave infraction of the constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. At the same time, there can be no gainsaying that the welfare of the individual must, in appropriate circumstances, yield to the welfare of the community at large. Consequently, in order to preserve the rule of law and ensure the orderly functioning of society, it becomes imperative to strike a delicate balance between the rights, liberties and privileges of an individual on the one hand and the legitimate interests of the State on the other. Undoubtedly, the exercise of such balancing is both nuanced and complex. 10. Be that as it may, it is ultimately for the court, which is vested with the discretion to determine whether the presence of an accused can be secured through the issuance of a bailable or non-bailable warrant, to judiciously strike a balance between the imperatives of effective law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of citizen from arbitrariness or highhandedness at the hands of the law enforcement agencies on the other. 11. The power and jurisdiction of the court to issue an appropriate warrant against an accused upon his failure to appear before the Court on the date fixed for hearing cannot be disputed. Nevertheless, such power is required to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, keeping in view, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the offence involved, the past conduct of the accused, his age and the likelihood of his absconding. 12. While there is no comprehensive or exhaustive set of guidelines governing the issuance of non-bailable warrants, this Court has consistently observed that an NBW ought not to be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous or serious offence, and there exists a reasonable apprehension that he is likely to evade the process of law or tamper or destroy evidence. 13. 13. Similar interpretation was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the Sharif Ahemed & Anr v. State of U.P., 2024 SC 2420 , wherein it has been held that: “46. It is a settled position of law that non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless necessitated by the larger interest of public and the State”. 14. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 9 SCC 791 , wherein it has laid down guidelines to be followed before issuing any NBW by the Court in Seisin, however to the utter surprise the impugned NBW was passed in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. Said guidelines are provided herein under: “23. The guidelines to be adopted where the Non-Bailable Warrants are issued by the Court: (a) All the High Court shall ensure that the Subordinate Couts use printed and machine numbered Form No,2 for issuing warrant of arrest and each such form is duly accounted for; (b) Before authenticating the court must ensure that complete particulars of the case are mentioned on the warrant (c) The presiding judge of the court (or responsible officer specially authorised for the purpose in case of High Courts) issuing the warrant should put his full and legible signatures on the process, also ensuring that Court seal bearing complete particulars of the Court is prominently endorsed thereon; (d) The Court must ensure that warrant is directed to a particular police officer (or authority) and, unless intended to be open-ended, it must be returnable whether executed or unexecuted, on or. Before the date specified therein (e) Every Court must maintain a register (in the format given below), in which each warrant of arrest issued must be entered chronologically and the serial number of such entry reflected on the top right hand of the process; (f) No warrant of arrest shall be issued without being entered in the register mentioned above and the concerned court shall periodically check/monitor the same to confirm that every such process is always returned to the Court with due report and placed on the record of the concerned case; (g)A register similar to one in clause € supra shall be maintained at the concerned police station. The station House Officer of the concerned Police Station shall ensure that each warrant of arrest issued by the Court, when received is duly entered in the said register and is formally entrusted to a responsible officer for execution; (h)Ordinarily, the Courts should not give a long time for return or execution of warrants, as experience has shown that warrants are prone to misuse if they remain in control of executing agencies for long; (i) On the date fixed for the return of the warrant, the court must insist a compliance report on the action taken thereon by the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station or the Officer In-Charge of the concerned agency; (j) The report on such warrants must be clear, cogent and legible and duly forwarded by a superior police officer, so as to facilitate fixing of responsibility in case of misuse (k)In the event of warrant for execution beyond jurisdiction of the Court issuing it, procedure laid down in Sections 78 and 79 of the Code must be strictly and scrupulously followed; and (l) In the event of cancellation of the arrest warrant by the Court, the order cancelling warrant shall be recorded in the case file and the register maintained. A copy thereof shall be sent to the concerned authority, requiring the process to be returned unexecuted forthwith. The date of receipt of the unexecuted warrant will be entered in the aforesaid register. A copy of such order shall also be supplied to the accused.” 15. In the present case, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is not a reasoned one and that the learned Court seized of the matter failed to apply its judicious mind before issuing the same. Further, it is well settled that NBW cannot be issued in a routine or mechanical manner, and that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless it is necessitated by the larger interest of public and the State. 16. Moreover, it is also observed that while issuing a NBW, the learned Court seized of the matter must record the reasons for its satisfaction that there exist sufficient grounds for such issuance, and that the Petitioner is evading arrest. However, in the instant case, no such reasons have been recorded. 17. 16. Moreover, it is also observed that while issuing a NBW, the learned Court seized of the matter must record the reasons for its satisfaction that there exist sufficient grounds for such issuance, and that the Petitioner is evading arrest. However, in the instant case, no such reasons have been recorded. 17. To concur with the foregoing directions, and to underscore that the same flow from the right to life and personal liberty, enshrined under Article 21 and 22 (1) of our Constitution, it is imperative that they be strictly complied with. However, it is also clarified that these are only broad guidelines and not inflexible rules of universal application, as the facts and circumstances, as well as the conduct of the accused, may vary from case to case. 18. Since discretion in this behalf is entrusted with the Court, it is not advisable to lay down immutable formulae or rigid prescriptions for the exercise of such discretion. As noted above, it is for the Court concerned to assess the factual matrix of each case and to exercise its discretion judiciously, dispassionately and without prejudice. 19. This Court is of the opinion that such action amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner, in absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his part. The issuance of non-bailable warrants must not be restored to in a mechanical manner. It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent and contemporaneous reasons which demonstrate the necessity of such stringent course. V. C ONCLUSION 20. In view of the foregoing analysis, and after an anxious and careful consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that to quash and set aside the Order dated19.02.20202, passed in the C.T. Case No. 354(A) of 2014 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 67 of 2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Athagarh, Cuttack, whereby a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the Petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Petitioner shall be permitted to face the trial. Consequently, this Court is inclined to accede to the relief prayed for. 21. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands allowed. 22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.