Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83561 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12109 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Monika Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ram Adhar Yadav, Satendra Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ram Adhar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. The present application has been filed with a prayer to stay the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur in Special Session Trial No.20 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354Kha, 413 IPC and Section 3(1) (da) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District- Saharanpur, pending before the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had already been enlarged on bail pursuant to the case filed against her. She was appearing before the court concerned on all dates. On one day, i.e. 28.01.2025, an application was submitted to excuse her appearance due to illness of her child, however, the said application was refused, and the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 was passed, issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant against the applicant. Relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court concerned cannot issue a Non-Bailable Warrant on the very first date. He admits that due to the illness of her child, she could not appear, but in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in several cases including the aforestated, the NBW could not be issued on the very first date. He, therefore, submitted that the concerned Magistrate has erred in law in issuing the N.B.W. against the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 is liable to be set aside by this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 could not dispute the aforesaid submission made by counsel for the applicant, however, he requests that trial may be expedited. In the judgement of Apex court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, it has been held that issuance of non-bailable warrants interferes with personal liberty and the Courts should be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants. The Apex Court further held that warrants, either bailable or non-bailable, should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind. What has to be ensured is that the concerned person was made aware about the legal process pending against him. The relevant portion of the judgment in Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- "―Personal liberty and the interest of the State "50. Civilized countries have recognized that liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration of Independence, 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen, 1789, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966 all speak with one voice--liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. 51. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants. 52. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilised society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period, only then the non-bailable warrants should be issued." In view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court as well as the contentions of the parties, the order dated 24.03.2025 shall be kept in abeyance. The applicant is directed to appear on each and every date before the court concerned and shall not seek any adjournment whatsoever. Adjournment, if any, can be granted only under very exceptional circumstances and court while giving adjournment shall give reasons in the order itself. Needless to say that in case, the applicant does not appear in any of the dates or does not move any application for execusing of the same, it is open to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law. It is expected that the trial court shall make all sincere endeavours to expedite the proceedings of the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party. With the above direction, the instant application under Section 528 BNSS is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 19.5.2025/Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad