Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22507 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 285 of 2025 Applicant :- Jang Bahadur Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 2. The supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. petitioner (now 528 BNSS) the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 18.1.2025 by which non bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner for non appearance before the court of Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2024. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act in short) were initiated by opposite party no.2 against the petitioner resulting in the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur thereby finding the petitioner guilty sentenced him for a period of one year's simple improvement along with fine of Rs.18,67,500/- and further imprisonment for one year in case of non payment of the said fine. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 25.10.2024 before Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, which was numbered as Appeal No.72 of 2024. In the said appeal, the petitioner could not appear on 18.1.2025 nor any application for adjournment was made, therefore, non bailable warrants were issued against him. When the case was listed on subsequent dates the appellate authority has issued non bailable warrants on 10.2.2025, 21.2.2025, 11.3.2025, 24.3.2025, 29.3.2025 and 10.4.2025 and now the matter is fixed for 28.4.2025. On all the aforesaid dates the petitioner has remained absent due to which the appellate court has issued non bailable warrants. 5. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that his counsel could not appear on these dates due to which non bailable warrants have been issued. 6. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order in as much as the only reason for absence of the petitioner was that he remained absent on 18.1.2025 though he was duty bound to be present on all the dates fixed unless his appearance was exempted in accordance with law by the appellate court. The only ground taken by the petitioner is that his counsel could could not appear before the trial court due to there being a resolution of the bar that no any adverse order to be passed. 7. According, without entering into merits of the case, it is provided that in case the petitioner appears on the next date fixed i..e. 28.4.2025 and moved application for bail, the appellate authority shall duly consider his application for bail and shall dispose of the same expeditiously. 8. With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.4.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench