1 2026:HHC:2991 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1174 of 2025. Reserved on: 1.1.2026. Date of Decision: 9.1.2026. M/s Sita Ram Chajju Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Paras Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 20.11.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, (learned Trial Court) in complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) by respondent No.2/complainant. 2. It has been asserted that respondent No.2/complainant has filed a complaint against the present petitioner which is pending before the learned Trial Court. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:2991 matter was listed for evidence on 2.8.2025. The petitioner was unable to appear before the Court, hence, the learned Trial Court issued the non-bailable warrants of arrest to secure the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrants of arrest which was listed on 20.11.2025. The petitioner was unable to appear before the learned Trial Court due to his health condition. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application because of non-appearance of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court erred in holding that the presence of the petitioner is an indispensable condition for considering the application for recalling of the non-bailable warrants of arrest. No prejudice would be caused in case the non- bailable warrants of arrest are recalled. Hence the petition. 3. Mr. Paras Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was unable to appear before the Court due to the circumstances beyond his control. The petitioner would appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the non-bailable warrants of arrest be recalled. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daljeet 3 2026:HHC:2991 Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2025:INSC:21 in support of his submission. 4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. It is undisputed that the petitioner is an accused before the learned Trial Court and had not appeared before the Court on 2.8.2025 when the matter was listed for recording the evidence. The learned Trial Court forfeited the personal and surety bonds to the State of HP and issued non bailable warrants of arrests to secure the petitioner’s presence. He filed an application for seeking the recall of the non-bailable warrants of arrest which was taken up for hearing on 20.11.2025, when the petitioner again absented from the Court, and the learned Trial Court dismissed the application. 6. The matter was posted for recording the evidence and the presence of the petitioner was necessary. He absented from the Court and the learned Trial Court forefeited the bonds furnished by him. Once the the bail bonds have been forfeited by the Court, the accused is supposed to furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court which cannot be done 4 2026:HHC:2991 without appearing before the court. Hence, the submission that the non-bailable warrants of arrest can be recalled without appearing before the Court and furnishing the personal and surety bonds cannot be accepted, and the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. 7. In Daljeet Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code which is not relevant to the adjudication of the matter pending before the Court. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Madras High Court in R. Sunder Vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Crl. R.C (MD) No. 1105 of 2023, decided on 12.10.2023 in which the Madras High Court noticed that the practice of surrendering in the High Court was dispensed with. This judgment deals with the practice prevalent in the different High Court and it is difÏcult to see how it will apply to the present case. 8. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) which is an extra ordinary jurisdiction and is to be sparingly exercised. In the present case, no case for the exercise of extra ordinary 5 2026:HHC:2991 jurisdiction has been made out. Hence the present petition cannot be allowed and the same is dismissed. 9. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 9th January, 2026 (Chander)