Absence from Trial Court Proceedings Justifies Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant and Precludes Conversion to Bailable Warrant.

The Petitioner was prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Case No. 1145 of 2024.

Although the Petitioner initially appeared and pleaded not guilty

he subsequently failed to attend trial proceedings.

Consequently, the Trial Court closed his right to cross-examine the complainant and skipped his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC

On January 8, 2026, the Trial Court convicted the Petitioner ex parte and issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) due to his absence during the pronouncement of judgment

The Petitioner moved the High Court to convert the NBW into a Bailable Warrant (BW) to facilitate the filing of an appeal without immediate arrest

1. Whether a Non-Bailable Warrant issued upon conviction in absentia can be converted into a Bailable Warrant to enable the convict to prefer an appeal

The Court applied the procedural principles governing trials under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the presence of the accused during judgment and the discretionary powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The court emphasized the principle that legal remedies are not intended for litigants who demonstrate "utter disregard" for judicial proceedings and deliberately evade the trial process

The Court scrutinized the Petitioner’s conduct, noting that despite being represented by an advocate, he abandoned the proceedings after the plea stage

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s excuse that involvement in another FIR prevented his appearance, observing that his absence predated that FIR

The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner chose to ignore multiple stages of the trial—including cross-examination, the Section 313 statement, and the final judgment—his actions constituted a deliberate attempt to subvert the judicial process

The Court determined that granting a Bailable Warrant just to facilitate an appeal would essentially reward the Petitioner’s "utter disregard" for the Trial Court’s authority

The Court held that the Petitioner must surrender before the Trial Court to seek further remedies

The Petition was dismissed