2026:HHC:4308 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.106 of 2026 Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Raju ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Owais Khan Pathan, Advocate For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State _____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, challenge has been laid to order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (Rape/POCSO), Sirmour District at Nahan in case No.08-ST (P)/7 of 2022 titled State of H.P vs Raju, whereby the learned Trial Court while rejecting the application for exemption moved by the petitioner, proceeded to issue Non-Bailable Warrants against him to secure his presence in the trial. 2. Precisely grouse of petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Sh. Owais Khan Pathan Advocate representing the petitioner is that though petitioner, on 2.2026:HHC:4308 account of his illness, had filed an application for exemption, but yet Court below ignoring explanation rendered in the application for exemption, proceeded to issue NBWs. He submitted that bare perusal of averments contained in the application clearly suggests that the petitioner was unable to come present on the fixed date and as such, the Court below ought to have adjourned the matter to some other date. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General while refuting the aforesaid submissions made at the behest of the petitioners vehemently argued that bare perusal of the documents produced on record by the petitioner itself suggests that he had been repeatedly filing applications for exemption, as a result thereof, trial is being delayed. He submitted that careful perusal of order dated 16.02.2026 nowhere suggests application of mind, if any, by the Trial Court. 4. Though, aforesaid order clearly acknowledges the factum with regard to filing of exemption application, but it nowhere suggests that explanation/reasons, if any, rendered on record by the petitioner for exemption, were ever considered and decided by the Court concerned. There is no specific mention, if any, with regard to previous adjournments, if any, taken by the petitioner. Court below simply rejected the application and proceeded to issue NBWs. Once, the petitioner had filed application for exemption (Annexure P-2), specifically stating therein that he is ill and is suffering from fever, 3.2026:HHC:4308 Court below before passing order laid challenge in the instant proceedings, ought to have ascertained the correctness of the averments contained in the application, by calling upon petitioner to produce relevant documents suggestive of his illness. 5. Be that as it may, this Court having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is otherwise ready and willing to appear in the Court on 28.02.2026 i.e the date fixed by the Court below, sees no reason to interfere with the order dated 16.02.2026, but deems it fit to order that petitioner shall remain present on 28.02.2026 before the Court below but till then the NBWs, if any, issued in terms of order dated 16.02.2026 shall not be executed. In case, the petitioner fails to put in appearance on 28.02.2026, order dated 16.02.2026 shall revive automatically and further police would be at liberty to take appropriate steps to comply with the same. 6. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms along with pending applications, if any. February 25, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (meera) Judge