Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for

the State.

2. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-

"A. Quash the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 and order

dated 28.02.2024 passed by the ACJM-V, Lucknow in Case No.

9782/2013 vide which Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued

against the Applicant. As Annexure no.3.

B. Permit the Applicant to appear through Counsel and

participate in the proceedings before the Trial Court in

accordance with Section 205 and 317 CrPC.

C. Any other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case

may also be kindly granted in favour of the Applicant."

3. Sri Murtaza has stated that the petitioner is an old aged

person of 85 years suffering various ailments, which are age

related, therefore, he could not appear personally before the

Court concerned at the time of framing charges, resultant

thereof the court concerned has straight away issued non-

bailable warrant against him, though the information regarding

age and ailment was apprised to the court concerned.

4. Sri Murtaza has further submitted that in such a critical and

ailing condition, the petitioner is willing to participate in the

proceedings but has requested that he may be permitted to

appear through counsel in terms of Sections 205 & 317 Cr.P.C.

Attention has been drawn towards Rule 11 of the Rules for

Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh,

2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), framed under

Article 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereunder

Rule 11 reads as under:

"11. Judicial remand, framing of charge, examination of accused and

proceedings under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

11.1 The Court may, at its discretion, authorize detention of an accused,

frame charges in a criminal trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 through video conferencing. However, ordinary judicial remand in

the first instance or police remand shall not be granted through Video

conferencing save and except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to

be recorded in writing.

11.2 The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to be

recorded in writing, examine a witness or an accused under Section 164 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or record the statement of the

accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through

video conferencing, while observing all due precautions to ensure that the

witness or the accused as the case may be, is free of any form of coercion,

threat or undue influence. The Court shall ensure compliance with Section

26 of the Evidence Act."

5. The aforesaid Rules also defines the exceptional

circumstances under Rule 2 (viii) as under:

"2. Definitions.-

(viii) "Exceptional circumstances" include illustratively a pandemic,

natural calamities, circumstances implicating law and order and matters

relating to the safety of the accused and witnesses."

6. Learned AGA has fairly assisted the Court and has submitted

that non-bailable warrant should not have been issued straight

away against any person unless the summon is issued and after

verifying the fact that despite the service of summons, the

accused person avoided the proceedings without having any

cogent reasons, then bailable warrant may be issued and if, after

service of bailable warrant, the accused person deliberately

avoids the proceedings, in such exceptional circumstances, the

non-bailable warrant can be issued as this law has been settled

by the Apex Court in re; Inder Mohan Goswami and Another

v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1.

Therefore, learned AGA did not defend the impugned orders

whereby the non-bailable warrants have been issued.

7. I appreciate the fair assistance of the learned AGA.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the material a