IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 2149 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

KHODA VIPULKUMAR LAXMANBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

BHUPENDRAKUMAR G CHAVDA(8140) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR D V KANSARA(7498) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. MEET THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 09/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. By filing the present Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to convert the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Learned Add. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Ahmedabad (Rural) at Dholka in Criminal Case No. 1145 of 2024 into a Bailable warrant, or alternatively, grant relief by directing the Learned Sessions Court to cancel the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against the petitioner vide order dated 08.01.2026, while recording conviction U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Annexure-A) in the interest of justice.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant other and further relief as deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present Petition are such that the Petitioner herein was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide Criminal Case No. 1145 of 2024 before the court of learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dholka, Ahmedabad Rural. Upon the complaint being filed, the learned Trial Court had issued summons to the Petitioner. The plea of the Petitioner was also recorded vide Exh.8, wherein the Petitioner had pleaded not guilty. However, after the plea of the Petitioner was recorded by the learned Trial Court, the Petitioner did not remain present before the learned Trial Court, and therefore, his right to cross-examine the complainant was closed by the learned Trial Court vide order below Exh.9. The stage for the present Petitioner for recording of his further statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also closed by the learned Trial Court due to his absence, and the proceedings were thus conducted ex parte. The learned Trial Court convicted the Petitioner for the offence in question vide judgment and order dated 8.01.2026. Even at the time of pronouncement of the judgment by the learned Trial Court, the Petitioner did not remain present before the court. It was directed by the learned Trial Court for issuance of a Non Bailable Warrant against him. It is against this direction of the learned Trial Court that the Petitioner is before this Court by filing the present Petition.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.V.Kansara appearing for the Petitioner, learned APP for the Respondent – State and learned Advocate Mr. Jigar G.

Gadhvi appearing on behalf of the Original Complainant.

4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was facing an FIR registered with Tarapur Police Station of District Anand. The said FIR was lodged by the respective complainant on 11.12.2025 and, since the Petitioner was taking recourse to the remedy available to him with regard to the said FIR, he could not appear before the learned Trial Court in the proceedings in question, nor the Advocate representing him, did intimate to him about the dates before the learned Trial Court, and therefore, he could not remain present before the learned Trial Court. He also submitted that the learned Trial Court, instead of directing the issuance of the Non Bailable Warr