Gujarat High Court
Bipinkumar Vasanji Sutariya vs State Of Gujarat on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/15923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 15923 of 2025
==========================================================
BIPINKUMAR VASANJI SUTARIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY B AMBANI(13896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HEET D. SHETH(18248) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.HIMANSHU PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By filing present petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(A) The Hon'ble Court may please to admit this Special Criminal Application.
(B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this application by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court, Rajkot at Annexure-A in Criminal Case No..20289 of 2022 dated 26.06.2025 in which NBW came to be issued and also be pleased to convert the NBW into bailable in the interest of justice.
(C) The Hon'ble Court may also please to allow this Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:39:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined application by directing 'not to take any coercive action' against the present petitioner pursuant to issuance of non bailable warrant passed by the learned trial Court , Rajkot at Annexure-A in Criminal Case No..20289 of 2022 dated 26.06.2025 till pendency of the petition in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(D) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this application the Hon'ble Court to execution, implementation and further operation of the passed by the Trial Court, Rajkot at Annexure A in Criminal Case No..20289 of 2022 dated 26.06.2025 may kindly be ordered to be stayed in the interest of justice."
2. The complaint was filed by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner for an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which had culminated into registration of Criminal Case No..20289 of 2022 in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. Initially, the petitioner herein remained present before the concerned trial Court in the aforesaid proceedings and his plea was also recorded. However, thereafter neither the petitioner nor his advocate remained present before the learned trial Court and therefore, his right to cross-examine the complainant was closed by the learned trial Court and the trial Court had Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:39:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined decided to proceed with the matter ex parte. The learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 26.06.2025, convicted the petitioner for the offence in question and on the date of pronouncement of judgment also the petitioner did not remained present before the learned trial Court and therefore, the learned trial Court had ordered to issue conviction warrant against the petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved by issuance of said warrant, the petitioner has come before this Court by filing present petition.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that due to communication gape between the petitioner and learned advocate, who was representing the case of the petitioner before the trial Court, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court and at the time of pronouncement of judgment, the warrant has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner is ready and willing to file an appeal against the order of conviction. However, to enable the petitioner to file such appeal, warrant issued against the petitioner is required to be converted into bailable warrant or else the petitioner would be taken into custody once he goes to file an appeal before the learned trial Court because of warrant issued against him. He also Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:39:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined submitted that this Court in several other cases in similar nature has passed an order to convert the warrant in question into bailable warrant. He has, therefore, submitted to allow the present petition as prayed for.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of present petition inter-alia contending that the present petition may not be allowed and the same should be dismissed.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. At the outset, the conduct on the part of the petitioner is required to be considered as noted by the learned Trial Court in its judgment dated 26.06.2025. After registration of the complaint against the petitioner by the respondent no.2, the summons under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. was issued against the petitioner. Pursuant to service of said summons, the petitioner remained present before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court had recorded its plea vide Exh-
5. However, thereafter the petitioner herein did remain present before the learned trial Court and therefore, the learned Trial Court was forced to proceed with the matter ex parte and even on 26.06.2025 when the judgment of conviction was pronounced by the learned trial Court, the petitioner did not remain present Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:39:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined before it and therefore, the learned trial Court had issued warrant against him.
7. As noted herein above, the judgment of conviction was pronounced by the learned trial Court on 26.06.2025 whereas the petitioner has filed the present petition on 25.11.2025, there is nothing on record to indicate that in the interregnum, the petitioner had made any attempt to file an appeal against the order of conviction before the learned Sessions Court.
8. Though, efficacious remedy of appeal against the order of conviction is available to the petitioner, the petitioner has chosen not to file any such appeal for the reasons best known to him. It is only when the warrant issued against him is sought to be executed, the petitioner has rushed to the Court instead of filing an appeal against the order of conviction. By filing the present petition, the petitioner is seeking to bypass the process of law, which requires him to surrender before the competent Court to enable him to file an appeal against the order of conviction and if the applicant had remained present before the learned trial Court at the time of pronouncement of judgment, this situation would not have arisen.
9. Having regard to these facts, the application does not Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:39:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/15923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined deserve any consideration. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) NABILA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by NABILA A. VHORA(HC00630) on Wed Dec 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 11 20:39:34 IST 2025