IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.223 of 2026 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Raj Pal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, very innocuous prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to issue direction to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh to decide his bail application at the earliest. 2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.2/complainant. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General representing respondent No.1, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 4. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit as well as other material adduced on record by the petitioner, this Court finds that respondent No.2 filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, wherein petitioner, being accused, failed to put in appearance and as such, court concerned proceeded to issue NBW against him for securing his presence. 5. Pursuant to afore NBW, petitioner herein was produced before the Court below from where he was sent to judicial custody for a period of 14 days. Though, petitioner has filed an application under Section 70(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for cancellation of NBW, but such prayer of him was not accepted and petitioner was sent to judicial custody for 14 days. After his being sent to judicial custody, petitioner has filed application for bail, which is stated to be pending consideration. Learned court below has now fixed the bail application on 30.03.2026 and as such, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court, seeking therein direction to learned court below to decide his bail application at the earliest. 6. Since issue raised in the instant petition with regard to liberty of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that petitioner immediately after his being sent to judicial custody, approached the 3 Court concerned with application for grant of bail, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the learned Court below to decide the bail application for the petitioner within a period of two days from today. Ordered accordingly. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to make available copy of the instant order to learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anni, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh by tomorrow, so that application filed by the petitioner is listed for consideration on next day. Needless to say, court below, while deciding the application, shall keep in mind that very purpose of issuance of NBW is to secure presence of the accused and once accused pursuant to NBW was produced before the Court, otherwise there appears to be no justification to keep him in judicial custody, especially when guilt, if any, of him is yet to be ascertained in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 8. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 24, 2026 (shankar)