Digitally signed by PATEL Date:

2026.02.13 18:16:59 +0530

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 469 of 2026

1 - Sushanta Bose S/o Rama Prasad Bose, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Proprietor Priya Poultry Farm G.E. Road, Telibanda Raipur, District-

Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus

1 - G. Pramod Naidu S/o G.L. Naidu, Aged About 61 Years, Retired D.S.P. R/o A/28, Maruti Residency Amlidih Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.).

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District- Magistrate Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.).

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy.A.G.

For Respondent No. 1 : Not noticed.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order On Board

12/02/2026

1. Heard on admission.

2. By this petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner prays for quashing of the non-bailable warrant dated 28.01.2026 issued by the learned First Addition Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 410/2024, 3. The learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section

138 of NI Act vide judgment dated 26.10.2024 in complaint case No. 792/2013 and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment of 01 year and fine of Rs. 6 Lakhs, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 02 months.

4. Against the said judgment of the trial court, the petitioner preferred the appeal wherein records were called for and the petitioner was regularly being represented through his counsel but on 28.01.2026, due to the petitioner’s non-appearance, the appellate Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner without issuing summon or bailable warrant, even though the trial Court’s record had not been received and without it hearing in the appeal was not possible.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner is against the settled position of law, therefore, the non-bailable warrant is liable to be set aside or quashed. He placed reliance on decisions of supreme Court rendered in Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1 and Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs. State OF Mahrashtra (2012) 9 SCC 791) which has been further followed by this Court in CRMP No. 1402/2021 decided on 06.10.2025 and submits that issuance of non-bailable warrant in the first instance without using the other tools of summons and bailable warrant to secure attendance of such a person would impair the person liberty guaranteed to every citizen under the constitution.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

7. The order dated 28.01.2026 shows that when the matter was taken up by the Appellate court, the original records of the trial Court as directed by the Appellate court was not received. However, when the accused/petitioner was not present before the Appellate Court, without waiting for the trial Court records and without using the other tools of summons and bailable warrant to secure attendance of petitioner, the appellate Court straight away directed issuance of arrest warrant at the first instance against the petitioner, which cannot allowed to sustain.

8. In view of the above discussion and applying the above position of law to the facts of the present case, the order dated 28.01.2026 for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the Appellate Court on 28.02.2026 at sharp

11:00 AM.

9. With the above observation and direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/-

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

JUDGE

Sourabh P.