NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice. Mr. Watwani accepts notice on behalf of the respondent State. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned MM issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner on 21st August, 2006. This order reads as under:

(2.) It is clear from the aforesaid narration of facts that petitioner had appeared in the Court on 21st August, 2006 when the matter was fixed which would be manifest from the move on the part of the petitioner in filing the application for cancellation of non-bailable warrants on the same date. It is also apparent that the non-bailable warrants were issued on the first call itself and much before 10.40 a.m. When the petitioner appeared with his Counsel he learnt that the case has been adjourned to 15th May, 2007. On approaching the Court on the same date and giving the aforesaid explanation because of which petitioner could not appear when the case was called out as he was standing outside the Court No. 26, I fail to understand as to why the learned MM did not consider it to be a genuine ground and pass the orders cancelling the non-bailable warrants there and then.

(3.) It may also be borne in mind that this order was passed in the morning itself. One has to bear in mind the provisions of Rule 3 of Chapter 1, part-C(i) in Part-III of Delhi High Court Rules which read as under: