Judicial discretion under Section 205 Cr.P.C. allows personal appearance exemptions in summary proceedings, ensuring fair trial processes while accommodating the accused's circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard Shri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Akhilesh Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 18.11.2024 (by which non bailable warrant has issued against applicant) passed by A.C.J.M. IV, Court No. 15, District- Jaunpur in Case No. 557 of 2021, under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S.-Singramau, District-Jaunpur.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that he had approached this Court with Application U/S 482 No. 10062 of 2024 seeking direction to quash the NBW, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2024 with the direction that if the applicant appears before the court below within 15 days, then his bail application shall be considered in view of the law laid down in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another , (2021) 10 SCC 773 , protection was also granted for the period of 15 days. In pursuance of that order the applicant had appeared before the court below and applied for bail and he was also released on bail. Thereafter, the applicant also participated in trial but because of his illness, he could not appear before the court on 19.09.2024 on that date applicant's counsel filed the adjournment application to adjourn the case considering his illness, which was allowed by the court below and directed the parties to appear before the court on 29.09.2024 for recording the statement on the charge. The case was again listed on 28.10.2024 and 04.11.2024, neither the accused nor the complainant appeared before the court below on that date. Lastly the matter was posted on 18.11.2024, on that date, an adjournment application was filed by the applicant on the ground of his illness, which was rejected by the court below on the ground that the application is not supported by any affidavit and impugned non-bailable warrant has been issued. It is further submitted that he had already obtained bail and wants to participate in the trial. Applicant may be permitted to participate in the trial through his counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C. by exempting his personal appearance.

4. However, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer on the ground that after obtaining the bail, the applicant did not appear before the court below for that reason, non-bailable warrant was rightly issued against him, therefore, no interference was called for.

5. Before considering the present case on merit, it would be appropriate to mention that this Court has flooded with a number of cases wherein direction was sought by the accused to grant them limited protection to appear before the court below so that they can move an application to recall of NBW or may apply for fresh bail, especially in those cases where the applicants have already been released on bail, but subsequently, because of certain reasons which include illness, they could not appear before the court below and or their adjournment application has been rejected by the court below, and non bailable warrant has been issued against them for ensuring their presence before the court concerned.

6. The proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act is summary in nature except in those cases where the court directs explicitly to conduct the proceeding as per the procedure of summons case. Section 145 N.I. Act also permits the complainant to give evidenc