1 2026:CGHC:7744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 468 of 2026 1 - Sushanta Bose S/o Rama Prasad Bose, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Proprietor Priya Poultry Farm J.E. Road Telibanda Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - G. Pramod Naidu S/o G.L. Naidu Aged About 61 Years Retired D.S.P. R/o A/28, Maruti Residency Amlidih Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Magistrate Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No. 1 : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 12/02/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. By this petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner prays for quashing of the non-bailable warrant dated 28.01.2026 issued by the learned First Addition Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2023, 3. The learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act vide judgment dated 13.01.2023 in complaint case No. 3170/2013 and sentence to undergo simple 2 imprisonment of 06 months and fine of Rs. 6, 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 03 months. 4. Against the said judgment of the trial court, the petitioner preferred the appeal wherein the petitioner was regularly being represented through his counsel but on 28.01.2026, neither petitioner nor any representation has been made on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the appellate Court issued a non- bailable warrant against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner is against the settled position of law, therefore, the non-bailable warrant is liable to be set aside or quashed. He placed reliance on decisions of supreme Court rendered in Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1 and Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs. State OF Mahrashtra (2012) 9 SCC 791) which has been further followed by this Court in CRMP No. 1402/2021 decided on 06.10.2025 and submits that issuance of non-bailable warrant in the first instance without using the other tools of summons and bailable warrant to secure attendance of such a person would impair the person liberty guaranteed to every citizen under the constitution. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. On perusal of the appellate Court’s order-sheets, it is evident that the petitioner failed to appear in person on 21.01.2026, 27.01.2026 and 28.01.2026, despite the matter being fixed for decision. Furthermore, on the last date, 28.01.2026, his 3 counsel also failed to appear before the appellate Court. The petitioner’s non-appearance on the dates fixed for decision indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the case, and the cited case law does not support the case of petitioner due to factual differences, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.