Convicted Accused Having Deliberately Evaded Trial Cannot Seek Conversion of Non-Bailable Warrant into Bailable Warrant

The Petitioner was prosecuted for an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Case No. 881 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 to record a further 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) against him to secure his presence for sentencing/execution.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to convert the NBW into a Bailable Warrant to enable him to file an appeal without immediate arrest.

1. Whether the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Trial Court following a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be converted into a Bailable Warrant due to the Petitioner's intent to file an appeal.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s non-appearance during the trial was sufficiently justified by the pendency of other criminal proceedings.

The court's decision was governed by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India regarding extraordinary writ jurisdiction and supervisory powers.

It applied the procedural principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, specifically Section 138.

The legal principle established is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to provide relief to a litigant who demonstrates "utter disregard" for judicial proceedings or deliberately evades the trial process.

The Court examined the Petitioner’s conduct throughout the trial, noting that while he claimed he missed court dates due to a separate FIR filed in December 2025, he had actually stopped appearing much earlier.

The Court found that the Petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to cross-examine the complainant and record a statement, all of which were ignored.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner’s absence was a "deliberate" attempt to show "utter disregard" for the Trial Court’s authority.

Regarding the request to convert the warrant, the Court determined that the Petitioner cannot seek the court's assistance to circumvent the legal requirement of surrendering before the Trial Court to facilitate an appeal when his own conduct led to the issuance of the NBW.

The Court held that the request to convert the Non-Bailable Warrant into a Bailable Warrant cannot be accepted in light of the Petitioner's deliberate non-appearance and disregard for the judicial process.

The Petition was dismissed, and the direction for the Non-Bailable Warrant remains in force.