Absence of Accused Post-Conviction Justifies Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant and Precludes Conversion to Bailable Warrant

The Petitioner was prosecuted for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Case No. 882 of 2024.

Although the Petitioner initially pleaded not guilty.

He subsequently failed to appear before the Trial Court.

Consequently, his rights to cross-examine the complainant and record a statement under Section 313 of the CrPC were closed.

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

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to convert the NBW into a Bailable Warrant to facilitate the filing of an appeal without immediate arrest.

Whether the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Trial Court upon conviction should be converted into a Bailable Warrant to enable the Petitioner to file an appeal.

Whether the Petitioner’s justifications for absence (pendency of other FIRs and lack of communication from counsel) warrant discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The court considered the procedural mandates of 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 of India.

The court balanced the statutory right to appeal under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the conduct of the accused and the necessity of surrendering to the jurisdiction of the court following a conviction.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's arguments that an FIR in a different district or the negligence of his advocate excused his continuous absence.

It noted that the Petitioner had stopped appearing long before the date of the cited FIR, indicating a deliberate attempt to evade proceedings.

The Court observed that the Trial Court was "constrained to proceed ex parte" because the Petitioner showed "utter disregard" for the judicial process by staying absent during the cross-examination, the Section 313 statement, and the final pronouncement.

The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner willfully bypassed the trial, he cannot now seek an equitable remedy to bypass the legal requirement of surrendering before the Trial Court to seek bail or file an appeal.

The High Court maintained that the Petitioner must first surrender before the learned Trial Court to pursue further legal remedies.

The Petition was dismissed.