1 2025:CGHC:56027 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1398 of 2025 1 - Ajay Chakravarti S/o Bansilal Chakravarti, Aged About 37 Years R/o Bannak Chowk Sirgitti P/s Sirgitti District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Torwa District Bilaspur (C.G.) ----Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, along with Mr. Gajanand Ratre , Advocates For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The present criminal has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, being aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Special Session Case No. N.D.P.S. 2/2022 (Annexure A/1) by Special Judge NDPS, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby an application filed by the applicant for cancellation of arrest warrant has been rejected and fresh warrant has been issued. 2 3. Facts of the case in brief are that  The present applicant is an accused in Special Session Case (NDPS) No. 2/2022 pending before the Hon’ble Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur for alleged offences under Sections 20B of the NDPS Act.  On 22/07/2025, the case was fixed for appearance of the accused persons including the present applicant Ajay Ajju. On that date, the applicant could not appear personally due to unavoidable circumstances; however, his counsel duly filed an application under Section 355 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking exemption from personal appearance.  Despite the said exemption application being on record, the learned trial court did not consider it and marked the applicant as "absent" and proceeded to issue a non- bailable warrant (NBW) against him vide order dated 22/07/2025. On the same day (22/07/2025), the learned trial court's order-sheet records a clear inconsistency while marking the present applicant Ajay @ Ajju as "absent", the court also showed co-accused Suraj as "present", although his signature does not appear on the order-sheet and even his counsel was present. Both accused had filed joint exemption applications, yet only Ajay @Ajju's application was ignored. Thereafter, the case was again listed on 3 10/10/2025 for appearance. On that date also, the counsel for the applicant submitted a fresh application under Section 355 BNSS on behalf of the applicant explaining his absence and seeking exemption for that date. Immediately thereafter, the applicant filed an application for cancellation of arrest warrant and for pardon (apology) before the Court, expressing regret for the earlier absence and undertaking to remain present on future dates.  The learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur, however, rejected the said application vide order dated 15/10/2025, without properly considering the reasons for absence or the previously filed exemption applications. Subsequently, vide order dated 15.10.2025, the Learned Court again directed issuance of a fresh arrest warrant against the present applicant Ajay @ Ajju. The learned Court below failed to consider the said exemption applications and proceeded to reject the application for cancellation of arrest warrant without judicial application of mind. Hence this Criminal Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the absence of the applicant was neither deliberate nor intentional but due to bona fide reasons duly explained in the applications filed under Section 355 BNSS.4. He further submits that the learned Court below ignored that the applicant's counsel had on both occasions 22/07/2025 and 10/10/2025 moved proper exemption applications, demonstrating full 4 respect for the Court proceedings. The trial court's record itself shows inconsistency the co-accused Suraj, who was also absent and whose counsel was present, was marked as "present" without signature, while the applicant's presence was wrongly marked "absent", showing clear non-application of mind. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the rejection of the application for cancellation of arrest warrant and issuance of a fresh warrant is mechanical, arbitrary and contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2007) 12 SCC 1, has held that the issuance of non-bailable warrants should be the last resort and the courts must adopt a cautious approach. The learned trial court failed to consider the overall conduct of the applicant, who has cooperated at every stage, He prays for quashment of the impugned order. 6. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for applicant. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record of the trial Court, it is evident that the applicant had duly moved applications under Section 355 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking exemption from personal appearance on both dates, i.e., 22.07.2025 as well as 10.10.2025. The order-sheet dated 22.07.2025 clearly demonstrates that despite a valid exemption application being on record, the learned trial Court failed to consider 5 the same proceeded to mark the applicant “absent”, whereas the co- accused Suraj—who was also not personally present—was marked as “present”, though neither his signature nor any reasoning appears on the record. Further, the conduct of the applicant in promptly filing an application for cancellation of the warrant along with an unconditional apology on the next date also demonstrates bona fides on his part. 8. The approach of the learned Special Judge in rejecting the application for cancellation of arrest warrant and in simultaneously directing issuance of a fresh warrant, without adverting to the exemption applications duly submitted on both occasions, appears to be contrary to the settled principles of law. In the present case, the learned Court below has failed to examine the reasons for absence and the overall conduct of the applicant, thereby causing grave prejudice to the applicant. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and considering that the absence of the applicant was neither deliberate nor contumacious, coupled with the fact that valid exemption applications were already on record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 suffers from illegality as well as material irregularity warranting interference in revision. Accordingly, the criminal revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 15.10.2025 rejecting the application for cancellation of arrest warrant and issuing a fresh warrant against the applicant is set aside. The non- bailable warrant issued against the applicant is hereby quashed, subject to the applicant ensuring his regular appearance before the 6 learned trial Court on all future dates unless exempted in accordance with law. 10.The Criminal Revision is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti