APHC010608202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11722/2025 Between: PEDADA RAMA MOHANA RAO, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. 2-79, DHAVALPETA, SRIKAKULAM-532168, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. PAIDA AMMAYAMMA, W/O LATE SRI RAMMURTHY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC HOME MAKER R/O KINTALI VILLAGE, PONDUR MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. AISHWARYA NAGULA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused, seeking quashment of the order dated 06.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1398 of 2025 in C.C.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponduru and to recall the NBW issued against him. 2 2. Heard Ms.Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein is the Accused, who is facing trial in C.C.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponduru, which is registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that, when the matter was posted for cross examination of P.W.1 on 28.08.2025, the counsel for the Petitioner was not available. The Petitioner requested time for cross examination of the witness and field a petition under Section 309 Cr.P.C, however, the said petition was returned and the cross examination of P.W.1 was closed by the Court. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner received a message about the demise of his close relative and as such, he left the Court, when the matter was called by the Court. Due to the absence of the Petitioner, a Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued against the Petitioner and the matter was posted for Section 313 Cr.P.C examination. It is further submitted that the Petitioner filed a petition to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant vide Crl.M.P.No.1398 of 2025 and the same was dismissed by the Court on 06.11.2025 on the ground that the Petitioner was not produced either physically or virtually before the Court from the date of his application, so that the Court may avoid the Court proceedings again and there is no bonafide in filing the medical certificate which was issued by his own hospital, that too, it is only a medical prescription. 3 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed before this Court, it appears that, when the matter has come up for cross examination of P.W.1, Petitioner / Accused took several adjournments and all other witnesses were examined. Apart from filing a recall petition, the Petitioner has also filed a transfer petition before the District Court and the same is pending. The fact remains is that, when P.W.1 appeared before the Court for cross examination, the counsel for the Petitioner was not available as he left for Shirdi. Petitioner appeared before the Court in the morning and when the matter was called, he was not present in the Court. Of course, the Petitioner has moved an application under Section 309 Cr.P.C seeking adjournment and the same was returned by the Court. 6. It is not the case that the Petitioner was not considered for his release on bail. NBW has been issued for the reason that the Petitioner could not appear before the Court when the matter was called, though he appeared during the call work and that when the matter was coming up for cross examination of P.W.1, the counsel for the Petitioner failed to appear in the matter. It is not in dispute that, before issuance of such NBW, the Petitioner / Accused was not in the custody and he used to pursue his matter. 7. In such circumstances, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 06.11.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1398 of 2025 in C.C.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponduru. The Non- 4 Bailable Warrant issued against the Petitioner / Accused is recalled on furnishing a personal bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, ensuring his presence during the course of trial. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:18.11.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.11722 of 2025 Dt.18.11.2025 Dinesh