SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 17861

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
P. M. Raval, J
Shabbir Mahammad Kashmani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7603 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Maulik M Soni
For the Respondents: Rohan H. Raval

A non-bailable warrant issued for non-appearance may be cancelled if the accused demonstrates a genuine intent to participate in subsequent proceedings and provides a formal undertaking to appear regularly, ensuring the interest of justice is served through both accountability and procedural compliance.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 70 - Non-bailable warrant - Cancellation of warrant - Accused, having failed to attend trial proceedings, sought recall of the process issued - Court, in interest of justice, allowed the request subject to conditions including depositing costs and filing a formal undertaking to ensure future attendance - Discretionary power to cancel warrants exists to facilitate participation in the trial where there is shown a genuine intent to abide by the legal process. (Paras 2, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a non-bailable warrant issued by the trial court due to successive absence during trial proceedings. The petitioner cited personal responsibilities and engagement with concurrent legal matters as the reasons for the failure to appear before the trial court.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that while non-appearance warranted the exercise of judicial process, the interest of justice is satisfied if the accused demonstrates a willingness to comply with the court's schedule. The court therefore directed the cancellation of the non-bailable warrant upon the conditions of payment of costs and the filing of an undertaking to appear on all future dates of hearing.

Issues: Whether a non-bailable warrant issued for non-appearance in a criminal matter should be cancelled when the accused commits to future attendance and demonstrates intent to participate in the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that while procedural regularity is essential, trial courts have discretion to set aside coercive processes when the party ensures future presence and provides a formal undertaking, thereby balancing legal accountability with the opportunity for a fair trial.

Result: Petition partly allowed; rule made absolute subject to payment of costs and submission of a formal undertaking.

Table of Content
1. initiation of petition to convert non-bailable warrant. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties' arguments regarding appearance and undertaking. (Para 3 , 4)
3. conditional cancellation of non-bailable warrant. (Para 5 , 6)

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the prayer to convert the non-bailable warrant dated 30th January 2026 issued under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into a bailable warrant. The petitioner challenges the warrant issued against him in Criminal Case No. 19929 of 2025.

3. Without entering into the merits of the case, which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition, learned advocate Mr. Maulik Soni would submit that the petitioner is aged 29 years and was initially doing a job; however, he had started a business of dry fruits. It is merely because of non-appearance that he could not remain present before the concerned Court. Other two FIRs are also lodged against him, and he was pursuing his legal remedy, and therefore he could not remain present before the concerned trial court on the dates so fixed.

4. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Rohan H. Raval would submit that, in view of the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner during the arguments, the petitioner is ready and willing to file an undertaking before the learned trial Court. Therefore, appropriate orders may be passed.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the averments made in the petition and the documents made available along with the petition, it appears that a non-bailable warrant was issued against the present petitioner due to his successive absence. Though learned advocate for the petitioner has fairly submitted that two other FIRs were lodged against him during this period, be that as it may, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is directed to file an undertaking before the trial Court to the effect that he would remain present on every date of hearing unless exempted by the trial Court, and in view of the same, the following order is passed:

(i) The non-bailable warrant issued under Section 70 Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner dated 30th January 2026 is cancelled on condition of depositing costs of ₹5,000 before the trial Court. The petitioner shall remain present before the concerned Court on 1st July, 2026 and shall also file the undertaking on the same day.

6. In view of above, the present petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top