Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41823 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5661 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjeev Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Singh Vishen,Raja Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Shishir Raj, Advocate holding brief of Sri Avinash Singh Vishen, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Diwaker Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Nishendra Kumar Pandey, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the application is being decided finally at the admission stage. Learned A.G.A as well as the learned counsel of the opposite party no.2 stated that they do not proposed to file any counter affidavit and they requested that the application be decided finally after hearing their submissions. 3. Upon an oral request made by the learned counsel for the applicant, he is permitted to correct the prayer clause of the application. 4. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Sultanpur in Case No. 6317 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 98 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Kurebhar, District Sultanpur, whereby an application seeking exemption of appearance of the applicant was rejected by the trial court and a non-bailable warrant issued against him. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Sultanpur in the aforesaid case, whereby a non-bailable warrant and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C have been issued against the applicant simultaneously. 5. The applicant had sought exemption of appearance on 06.06.2025 on the ground that he had undergone a surgical operation for treatment of Hernia. The application seeking exemption of appearance was rejected by a one word order without assigning any reason. 6. I am of the view that failure of an accused person to personally appear before the Court for the reason that he had undergone a surgical operation, amounts to a sufficient cause for his non appearance and it makes out a good ground for granting him exemption for his appearance. In any case, if the learned trial court was not convinced with the sufficiency of the aforesaid reason, he could have rejected the application after assigning sufficient reason in the judicial order and no order detrimental to the interest of an accused person will be sustainable in law if sufficient reasons have not been mentioned in the order. 7. Although, the learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the application, they could not dispute the fact that a judicial order must contain reasons for its passing and no judicial order can be sustained in absence of adequate reasons contained therein. 8. In view of the forgoing discussion, the instant application is allowed and the impugned orders dated 06.06.2025 and sequential order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Sultanpur are quashed. 9. The learned counsel for the parties informed that this case is fixed before the trial court on 02.08.2025. The applicant is directed to remain present before the trial court on 02.08.2025 and thereafter to cooperate with the proceedings of the trial court and not to create any unwarranted hindrance in expeditious disposal of the proceedings. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench