IMPORTANT POINT
Personal appearance is mandatory for bond acceptance under Section 88 Cr.P.C., and non-compliance can lead to rejection of applications.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S. P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. Before proceeding, it would be apt to rectify that in the order dated 28.08.2024 inadvertently name of "Shri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate" has been indicated as counsel for opposite party no. 2, which is rectified and same would read as "Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, Advocate".

3. The present application has been filed by the applicant namely Navneet Bhadauria seeking following main relief:

"to allow the present Application filed under section 528 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2024 (BNSS) corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C exercising the inherent powers to give effect to the provisions of the Code and quash the impugned order dated 21/8/2024 passed by Learned Court of ACJM I Court No. 25 Lucknow and direct and permit applicant so as to furnish the bonds under section 88 Cr.P.C to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court in FIR No. 0363/2021 Case No. 80697/2022 U/s 323,504,506,420,467,468,471 IPC PS Vibhuti Khand Lucknow in the interest of justice."

4. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of the application under consideration, are as under:

(i) An FIR was lodged as Case Crime No. 363 of 2021 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 406, 420 at Police Station - Vibhuti Khand District - Lucknow by opposite party no.2/Deepak Sharma against Anand Kumar Singh @ Baba Trikaldarshi, Rajeev Lochal Paliwal, Navneet Bhadauria (applicant herein), Vijay Pal Prapati and one unknown.

(ii) After the aforesaid, the investigation was carried out and upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") submitted the charge-sheet dated 01.06.2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 which was submitted before the Court concerned on 19.07.2022.

(iii) Thereafter, the Court concerned took cognizance upon the charge-sheet on 19.07.2022 and summons were issued to the accused indicated in the charge-sheet named above.

(iv) It appears that in pursuance to the summons, the applicant did not appear before the Court.

(v) Thereafter, the Bailable Warrant was issued on 10.10.2022 and despite the order related to issuance of the Bailable Warrant, the applicant did not appear before the trial Court and ultimately on 15.10.2022, the trial Court issued the Non-Bailable Warrant.

(vi) For the purposes of interference in the pending criminal proceedings, the applicant approached this Court by means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 6754 of 2022. This Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case vide order dated 26.09.2022, declined to interfere in the pending criminal proceedings and disposed of the said application preferred by the applicant/Navneet Bhadauria under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") with liberty to the applicant to prefer an application seeking anticipatory bail or regular bail. The relevant portion of order dated 26.09.2022 reads as under:

"In view of the aforesaid case law, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.

The submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. Therefore, I do not find any justification to quash the proceedings against the applicants