[2026:JHHC:20972] 1 Cr. M.P. No.735 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.735 of 2025 ------ Bhubaneshwar Pathak, aged about 63 years, son of Shyam Raj Pathak, resident of Aparna Colony, Ram Jaipal Nagar, Sri Rampath, Road No. – 7, P.O. & P.S. – Rupaspur, District- Patna (Bihar) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhandd 2. Najaf Engineering Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office address at 30B Nirmal Chundar Road, P.O. + P.S. – Bowbazar, District- Kolkata, West Bengal, represented through Mr. Rizwan Aslam son of Aslam Siddiqui, resident of Sindri Road, Oppoiste – Islam Bakery, Shamsher Nagar, P.O. & P.S. – Jharia, Dist. – Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No.9345 of 2026 Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. [2026:JHHC:20972] 2 Cr. M.P. No.735 of 2025 3. Since the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.735 of 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.01.2025 passed in C.P. Case No. 5534 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for seeking exemption from personal attendance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of C.P. Case No. 5534 of 2024. Vide order dated 27.03.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has found prima facie case and sufficient material to proceed inter alia against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered for issue of summons. The summons was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad upon receipt of the summons. Vide order dated 15.05.2024, on being satisfied that the petitioner is not appearing in the court concerned despite receipt of the summons, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad directed [2026:JHHC:20972] 3 Cr. M.P. No.735 of 2025 for issue of bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. On 02.07.2024, the Advocate of the petitioner filed a vakalatnama. The petitioner was absent so, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad directed the Office Clerk to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest. On 19.08.2024, the learned counsel for the complainant orally submitted before the court that though vide order dated 02.07.2024, the court directed for issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the accused persons of the case but inadvertently, the non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the complainant instead of the said being issued against the accused persons of the case and made a prayer to recall the non-bailable warrant of arrest, the prayer was allowed and the Office Clerk was directed to recall the warrant issued against the complainant mistakenly. On the same day later on, a petition to recall the order dated 02.07.2024 has been filed on behalf of the accused persons also and the petition under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed and the same was pending; the prayer was allowed and Office Clerk was directed to recall the warrant issued against the accused persons. On 26.09.2024, 14.11.2024 and 27.11.2024, the petitioner who is the accused person remained absent before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad. On 17.01.2025, the case was fixed for order on a petition under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking exemption from personal attendance of the petitioner and permitting him to appear through his pleader. 4. It was contended by the petitioner that he is a resident of Patna and the distance between Patna and Dhanbad is roughly around 340 [2026:JHHC:20972] 4 Cr. M.P. No.735 of 2025 KMs. The petitioner is a businessman and is a Director of the Company namely M/s Bhubaneshwar Pathak Construction Private Limited. The petitioner on account of his business commitment and pre-occupation has to travel constantly and the nature of work is of perennial nature, hence, it would be difficult for the petitioner to remain present on each and every date fixed by the learned trial court and would cause inconvenience to the petitioner and he would make himself available on any date when his presence is required by the learned trial court. The said prayer of the petitioner was objected to by the complainant. The complainant contended before the learned trial court that considering the non-appearance of the petitioner who is the accused person of the said case, bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him and thereafter, non-bailable warrant of arrest was also issued against him and only after issue of the bailable warrant of arrest, the petitioner filed a petition seeking exemption from his personal attendance with permission to appear through his lawyer which is not maintainable. It was also contended by the complainant that the accused petitioner is regularly visiting Dhanbad for his business purpose and executing agreements entered into with various persons; hence, there is no rhyme or reason to take the plea that the accused petitioner cannot come to the court at Dhanbad. It was also contended that the case involves misappropriation of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad considered that the petitioner did not appear before the court concerned on receipt of the summons issued on 25.04.2024, hence, bailable warrant of arrest [2026:JHHC:20972] 5 Cr. M.P. No.735 of 2025 was issued against him but even after that, he did not appear. On 02.07.2024, though he appeared through his lawyer but non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued on the same day then, the petition under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. The petition filed by the petitioner does not give any justifiable reason for dispensing with his personal appearance; except that the residence of the accused is far away from the place of trial at Dhanbad where the complaint case is pending and the accused is a businessman and is a regular traveller. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad considered that since the petitioner admittedly is able to visit different States in the course of his business so, it will not be impossible for the petitioner to attend the court at Dhanbad. It was also considered that the amount involved in the case is huge and if such privileges is given to an accused in a case of this nature, people will lose confidence in the administration of justice. It was also considered that in a case involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a scope of settlement if the parties sit and talk; they can save their valuable times instead of fighting the case and the party himself can present the view there. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad considered that the power vested upon under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary power and without finding any reasonable and just cause for exercising the discretion, rejected the prayer. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad ought not to have considered [2026:JHHC:20972] 6 Cr. M.P. No.735 of 2025 that the amount involved in this case is huge. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rameshwar Yadav & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2018) 4 SCC 608 and submits that in that case, the offences were punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; keeping in view that the accused person – father-in-law of the complainant, was a retired Army Personnel and residing in Pune with his wife, who is other accused person. Two more accused persons were also residing at Pune and one of the accused persons was working at Hyderabad and the trial was taking place at Patna which is at the distance of 1750 KMs, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered the same to be one of the reason to allow the prayer of the accused persons of that case who were the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for exemption of their personal appearance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the petitioner is living at a distance of 340 KMs from the place of trial so, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad ought to have allowed the prayer of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Proceedure. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. & Others reported in (2001) 7 SCC 401, which was also placed by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, and submits that in para-17 thereof, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India [2026:JHHC:20972] 7 Cr. M.P. No.735 of 2025 that in appropriate cases, the Magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel and Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused (provided he is represented by a counsel in that case) even for proceeding with the further steps in the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submit that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner received the summons of the complaint case but still chose not to appear before the court concerned in compliance of the summons issued by the court concerned and consequently vide order dated 15.05.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has issued the bailable warrant of arrest and once the learned trial court issues the bailable warrant of arrest, stage of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is over and the petitioner could have appeared in compliance of the bailable warrant of arrest issued against him and later on, if the need for the same arise, could have prayed for dispensing with his personal appearance under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is next submitted that unlike the facts in the case of Rameshwar Yadav & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra); in this case, the undisputed fact remains that petitioner frequently visits Dhanbad in connection with his business activities and in comparison [2026:JHHC:20972] 8 Cr. M.P. No.735 of 2025 to the distances of 1750 Kms as was the case in Rameshwar Yadav & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra); in this case, the distance of 340 Kms is negligible one when the petitioner himself says that he takes up so much travel and remains busy in travelling only so, there will not be justifiable reason for not insisting upon the execution of the bailable warrant of arrest which was already issued against him and which is not under challenge. It is further submitted that because of the dilatory tactics of the petitioner to persistently non-appearing in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in order to frustrate the complaint involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner has, so far, succeeded in delaying the disposal of the complaint petition for more than two years by successfully evading his appearance before the court concerned which led the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad to issue a fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest on 19.11.2025 and the said order also is not under challenge and in view of the conduct of the petitioner, there is no illegality committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in not exercising its discretion of dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of those cases on which the learned counsel for the [2026:JHHC:20972] 9 Cr. M.P. No.735 of 2025 petitioner relied upon. The undisputed fact remains that unlike those cases upon which relied by the petitioner, in this case, the petitioner despite service of summons of the complaint case involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without any plausible reason, failed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad which led the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad, after being satisfied that the petitioner who is the accused person of the case has received the summons but has not appeared before the court concerned, to issue the bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner even then, the petitioner has succeeded in evading his appearance before the court concerned. 10. The undisputed fact remains that though the petitioner ordinarily resides at Patna which is about a distance of 340 Kms away from Dhanbad where the complaint case is pending but he frequently visits Dhanbad in connection with his business activities which was not the fact of the case of Rameshwar Yadav & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another (supra). The undisputed fact also remains that the petitioner because of consistent non-appearance before the court concerned without any plausible reason, vide the order dated 19.11.2025, fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest has already been issued against the petitioner. The stay order is not under challenge. 11. Considering the conduct of the petitioner in evading his appearance before the court concerned in a case involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is supposed to have been disposed of within a short span of time, this [2026:JHHC:20972] 10 Cr. M.P. No.735 of 2025 Court do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in not exercising its power under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the bailable warrant of arrest has already been issued against the petitioner and the stage of issuing of summons is already over. 12. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 13. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and is released on bail, the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad will not be barred for the petitioner to apply for dispensing with his personal appearance in exercise of its power under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. 15. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, pending I.A. No. 8011 of 2026 is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th of July 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 17/07/2026