Anant Prakash Singh Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Ms. Sharma, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent/State. Taken up for hearing for final disposal, with the consent of the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for exemption filed by the petitioner along with other accused persons came to be rejected by the learned trial Court, only so far as the petitioner is concerned, on the ground that non-bailable warrant is issued against the petitioner/accused no.4 on the same date. After acquiring knowledge about the issuance of non-bailable warrant, the petitioner has moved an application for cancellation of the non-bailable warrant. The learned trial Court vide order dated 20.08.2026 had also rejected the said application for cancellation of non-bailable warrant on the ground that the matter is of the year 2019 and the trial is not yet begun due to the continuous absence of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Deo that revision filed by the petitioner i.e. accused no.4 challenging the order of discharge application, is pending for orders after the completion of hearing on merits. He further relied upon the rojnama dated 16/06/2026 and 26/06/2026 of the proceedings pending before the learned Revisional Court and submits that hearing on the side of the accused no.4/petitioner is already over and the matter is kept for orders. Thus, the revision challenging the discharge application is still pending, hence, the petitioner was expecting an early order to be passed by the learned Revisional Court challenging the discharge application. The petitioner had thus filed the application for exemption on the same date i.e. 13.08.2026, the trial Court had taken up the case for hearing. The learned counsel therefore submits that non-bailable warrant has been issued despite of the knowledge that the revision is pending before the learned revisional Court challenging the discharge application. The applicant is working at Odisha as an officer of the bank, hence could not remain present on the said dated i.e. 13.08.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore filed an application for exemption, however, the said application came to be rejected. Hence, the application for cancellation of the non-bailable warrant was filed by the petitioner, which also came to be rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if this Court directs the early disposal of the revision application, then the petitioner would comply whatever the orders which are passed by the learned Revisional Court and shall also remain present for framing of charge before the trial Court, in the event the revision is rejected by the learned Revisional Court. The applicant is further ready to show his bondafides by depositing Rs. 20,000/- as costs before the Trial Court. Hence, prays for cancellation of the non-bailable warrant issued by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.08.2026.

As against this, Ms. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State strongly opposes present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was found to be in continuous default and has remained absent. The trial is of the year 2019, and the charges against all the accused persons have already been framed. However, as the petitioner has preferred the discharge application at a belated stage, the charges against the accused persons could not be framed. She further prays that it is only under this background and the circumstances as recorded by the trial court, that the non-bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. The application for cancellation of non-bailable warrant was also considered by recording the detailed reasons, the application came to be rejected. The impugned order is just and proper and liable to be maintained. The non-bailable warrant is issued only to ensure the presence of the petitioner, who delayed the proceedings on or other ground. The petitioner has filed merely a revision and did not take any steps for early disposal of the revision. Hence, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have gone through the order dated 13-08-2026 and order dated 20-08-2026 passed by the Trial Court and rozanama dated 16.06.2026 and 26.06.2026 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, where criminal revision filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of his discharge application is pending. The rozanama shows that hearing from the side of the accused no.4 is already completed and matter is posted for orders on the revision application. However, it appears that the orders are not yet passed by the learned Revisional Court. Thus it appears that the applicant has diligently pursued the Revision, however the orders are not yet passed by Revisional Court. The earlier roznama of trial Court also shows that earlier exemption applications filed by petitioner /accused no.4 are allowed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court directly issued Non-Bailable Warrant without issuing bailable warrant. The exemption application was also filed on the same date i.e on 13-08-2026. The exemption applications could have been allowed by imposing cost and warning that if accused no.4 does not remain present on next date, non-bailable warrant would be issued and the non-bailable warrant issued on same date could have been cancelled. Be that as it may, since, the petitioner has undertaken that after the revision application is decided by the learned revisional Court, the petitioner would remain present before the trial Court as and when so directed by the learned trial Court and is voluntarily undertaking to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- for securing his presence. Hence, I am inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present writ petition and pass the following order.

The impugned order dated 20.08.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli in Regular Criminal Case No. 94 of 2019, whereby the application filed by accused No. 4/petitioner herein seeking cancellation of the non-bailable warrant came to be rejected, is hereby quashed and set aside.

The impugned order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadchiroli in Regular Criminal Case No. 94 of 2019 below Exhibit 1, whereby a non-bailable warrant came to be issued against accused No. 4/petitioner herein, is also hereby quashed and set aside.

The aforesaid orders are passed subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking before the learned Trial Court that he shall remain present before the learned Trial Court as and when his presence is required for the purpose of framing of charge if the revision is being rejected and also subject to petitioner depositing costs of Rs.20,000/-before the learned trial Court.

Taking into consideration that the accused no.4/petitioner has already concluded his hearing before the learned Revisional Court and the matter is kept for orders, it is hereby directed that the learned Revisional Court i.e. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, shall decide the revision application no. 13 of 2026 filed by the accused no.4/petitioner herein expeditiously and not beyond the period of one month from the date of receipt of the order.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.