JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of the order dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram vide which the bail granted to the petitioner stands cancelled and the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through warrants of arrest in a complaint case titled as 'Sushil Handa vs. Safe Store Mart Pvt Ltd' bearing CIS No:NACT/34878/2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a false case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed against the petitioner in which he is likely to be acquitted. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was granted bail by the Court below in the said case vide order dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P-2) and was diligently attending all the hearings before the Court below. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been suffering from abnormal mild diffuse encephalopathy since the year 2021 i.e. a condition affecting the cognitive and physical abilities of the petitioner which is supported by the medical reports (copy whereof has been appended as Annexures P-3 to P-5).

Learned counsel has further submitted that due to the medical condition of the petitioner, he was unable to appear before the Court below on 11.10.2024 and could not even inform his counsel, which led to the cancellation of his bail and issuance of warrants of arrest vide the impugned order. Furthermore, the proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated against the petitioner (Copy whereof of has been annexed as Annexure P-7). Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to the circumstances beyond his control, the learned Court below, without considering the inadvertence, erroneously cancelled the bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner vide impugned order i.e. 11.10.2024. Learned counsel has urged that the non-appearance of the petitioner before the Court below was neither deliberate nor intentional but purely on account of his health condition. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention to evade the proceedings and undertakes to be present before the Court below on all future dates of hearing without fail. According to learned counsel, the issuance of non-bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the petitioner's absence was purely inadvertent. Learned counsel has further contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Court below in directly issuing the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is well established position of law, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the Courts are required to adhere to due process while ensuring the presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in the instant case, the learned trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the Court below as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the Sessions Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Keeping in view the nature of the matter especially the factum of the case in hand arising out of the criminal complaint fried under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it appropriate to call upon the respondents at this stage.

4. I hav