1 2025:CGHC:6039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 422 of 2025 1 - Mahesh Agrawal S/o Nathulal Aged About 37 Years Proprietor Mahesh Disposal Through Krishna Provision Stores Proprietor Mohan Agrawal Infront Of Balram Stores Kera Road Village And Post Pendri Police Station And Tehsil - Janjgir District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Central Bank Of India (Banking Body Constituted Under Banking Companies Act 1970) Through Its Branch Manager Central Bank Of India Branch Station Road Janjgir Station House Officer Janjgir And Tehsil Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03.02.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this instant petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the stay of effect and operation of order dated 05.08.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 66/2022 filed under Section 145 read with section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class of Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh wherein the Magistrate has issued arrest warrant against the petitioner. 2. The case in nutshell is such that a cheque no. 199247 dated 20.01.2022 of State Bank of India Branch- Janjgir Champa of 2 Rss. 39,69,544/- which was deposited for payment in State Bank of India. It was returned on 27.01.2022 with a note of insufficient funds. It is shown that the demand notice letter was sent ot the accused by the advocate on behalf of the complainant on 24.02.2022. The said notice was returned to the complainant advocate in an envelope with a door locked note from the post office on 17.03.2022, then the complainant sent a notice to the accused by registered post at the correct address given by the accused. The accused refused to take the notice and did not pay the amount of the cheque within 15 days from 01.04.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the notice has not been served to the present petitioner as the address of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned. Moreover the offence under Section 138 is bailable and it is civil in nature, whereby it is also relevant to mention that it is the issuance of the non-bailable warrant can be challenged before the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or by filing writ petition. Hence he prays for four week breathing time for the petitioner to appear before the court of concerned Magistrate and get his warrant canceled in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection in relation to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite vivid that the offence is a bailable offence. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the trial court may recall the warrant against the petitioner. Further petitioner would surrender himself before the trial court positively on 21st of February, 2025 3 and the trial court would decide the bail application on the same day. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition is disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza