Courts may issue non-bailable warrants where an accused deliberately evades proceedings.

The petitioner, accused no. 2 in four complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 31 August 2026 refusing his exemption application and directing issuance of non-bailable warrants (NBWs).

The Trial Court cited his absence since 31 July 2024, earlier adjournments, unpaid costs, and its doubts about the medical certificate submitted in support of exemption.

The High Court noted his persistent non-appearance despite directions for physical attendance, although he had reportedly appeared virtually on some dates.

Whether, in the circumstances recorded by the Trial Court, the petitioner’s attendance could be secured through NBWs.

Whether the NBWs should be cancelled in light of the petitioner’s undertaking to attend future hearings and his agreement to pay costs.

The Court stated that a Trial Court is not precluded from issuing NBWs where an accused deliberately evades proceedings, but must consider whether that measure is necessary on the particular facts.

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent governing issuance or cancellation of NBWs; it applies this case-specific necessity principle.

The petitioner’s repeated non-appearance and failure to comply with the direction for physical attendance supported the Trial Court’s decision to issue NBWs; virtual appearances on some dates did not excuse that failure.

The High Court therefore found no infirmity in the impugned order.

However, the petitioner appeared before the High Court and unequivocally undertook to attend future hearings unless exempted beforehand, and agreed to pay reasonable costs.

The Court cancelled the warrants subject to payment of cumulative costs of ₹1,00,000 and compliance with that undertaking.

It requested the Trial Court to endeavour to dispose of the four long-pending complaints preferably within one year, and disposed of the petitions on those terms.