NARESH ALIAS BITTU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is not maintainable under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 as per the judgment rendered by this Court titled 'Abhishek Jain Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another' (CRM-M-31808-2024) 2024PHHC085784, However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed expedient that the instant petition is directed to be considered as a petition under Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had earlier been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court and since then he was regularly appearing before the trial Court. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner could appear before the trial Court on 2/1/2025 as he had to go outside the State of Punjab in his relations for some urgent work and accordingly filed the application(s) seeking exemption from personal appearance. However, the trial Court had declined the said exemption application(s) of the petitioner and summoned him through non-bailable warrants of arrest for 3/2/2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that on 3/2/2025, the petitioner again could not appear before the trial Court as he was not intimated about the dismissal of his exemption application and the next date of hearing by his counsel representing him before the trial Court. Learned counsel has iterated that the non-appearance of the petitioner cannot be necessarily construed as a deliberate and willful absence. Learned counsel has contended that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court in directly issuing the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is well established position of law, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the Courts are required to adhere to due process while ensuring the presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in the instant case, the learned trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertake to enter appearance before the trial Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for a expeditious culmination of the trial.

(3.) Notice of motion.