[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
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
