1 2025:CGHC:2389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 154 of 2025 1 - Mohammad Junaid Meman S/o Haji Umar Memon Aged About 38 Years R/o Anmol Tower 171/a/2, In Front Of Mahatma Fule School, Nagpur, District Nagpur, Maharashtra. 2 - Mohammad Khalid Meman S/o Haji Umar Meman Aged About 43 Years R/o Anmol Tower 171/a/2, In Front Of Mahatma Fule School, Nagpur, District Nagpur, Maharashtra. 3 - Moh. Javed Meman S/o Late Moh. Umar Meman Aged About 45 Years R/o Chandra Gutta, Thana Chandra Gutta, Hayderabad, Anmor Towers, 172/a/2 Cement Road, Vesali Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station City Kotwali, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Justice Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 2 15/01/2025 1. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has sought the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 08.08.2024 thereby the learned trial court has rejected the application filed under Section 355 of the BNSS i.e., for exemption/condonation of the petitioners from personal appearance, the trial court rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioners have not appeared on any date before the trial court after their release on bail and further the counsel has not disclosed that before which court the petitioner’s case is fixed on 08.08.2024. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein has been arrayed as an accused in crime number 592/2019 and thereafter the charge sheet has been filed before the trial court i.e. special court Raigarh for the offences under section 420, 34 of the Code of Indian Penal and section 6 and 10 of Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 (in short Act of 2005) and allegation leveled against the petitioner that the complainant and other 22 person invested near about Rs. 9,98000/- in the company with the promise to get higher amount and the same has not been returned and thereby cheated the complainant and victims. After filing of charge sheet the case has been registered as Special Criminal Case (CGPDIA) no. 4/2021. The petitioner no. 1 and 2 got released on bail by the Hon'ble High Court in MCRC No. 6850/2021 by order dated 24.01.2022, as the conditions in the said order of the Hon'ble Court for furnishing of security is very high for which the application for modification of said conditions has been filed bearing CRMP No. 999/2022 and the same was allowed by way of order dated 22.09.2022 and thereafter the petitioner no. 1 and 2 furnished the security before each trial court and got finally released from jail in May 2022 and for the petitioner no. 3 bail petition number 2193/2022 has been preferred and the same was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court on 13.04.2022 and finally got released out of jail in June 2022, however against the petitioner there are total 19 cases registered in the state of Chhattisgarh in different district i.e. 3 cases at Kanker, 10 cases at Rajnandgaon, 6 cases at Ambikapur Sarguja and 1 3 case at Raigarh and they got released in July 2022. The copy of bail orders and modification orders are filed as ANNEXURE P-2 Colly. The case of the petitioners in respect of crime number 592/2019 which is registered in Kotwali police station at Raigarh fixed regularly before the learned Special Judge (C.G. protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005), Raigarh bearing special criminal case no. 4/2021 and the petitioners have marked their appearance either by counsel or by personally, however due to registration of cases in different district it is not possible for the petitioners to appear regularly, however for the framing of charges the accused are required to appear but the petitioners were in impression that the charges has been framed in the present case, but in fact their discharge application was dismissed but not the charges were framed. The said order of rejection of their discharge application the petitioner has preferred the Criminal revision bearing CRR no. 104/2023 and in which the order has been passed to the effect reserving the liberty to the petitioner to sought the adjournment before the court below. On 08.08.2024 the aforesaid case was listed before the learned trial court and the counsel has moved the application under section 355 of BNSS i.e. for condonation/ exemption of the absence of the petitioner on ground that the petitioner have the date in case at Rajnandgaon Court and due to which unable to appear before the Court, the same was objected by the prosecution and finally the said application has been dismissed by the trial court by way of order dated 08.08.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 08.08.2024 is contrary to record as the petitioners have marked their appearance even after their release on bail but the same has not been pointed out by the Counsel before the trial court and therefore the order impugned is liable to be set aside. He further contended that issuance of arrest warrant directly without affording opportunity is in violation of petitioners fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioners. 5. Learned State Counsel has raised an objection in this regard. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 7. Perusal of record shows that on 08.08.2024 the petitioner could not appear before the Sessions Court, Raigarh because on the same day another case was listed before the Rajnandgaon Court in respect of which the counsel for the petitioner has moved an application but the Trial Court has not only rejected the application for condonation of non- appearance of applicant but also discharged the bail bond and issued arrest warrant against the petitioner. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner herein ought to have give the proper information regarding his absence before the Sessions Court, Raigarh. 9. However, a direction issued to the concerned Trial Court that if the petitioner file an application for cancellation of warrant after their surrender, learned Court below may consider and decide the same on its own merits, if possible, on same day in accordance with law. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima