IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6313 of 2009 Between: Molleti Suryanarayana alias Suresh .. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., through Nagaram Police Station. .. Respondent Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to recall the N.B.Ws. pending against the petitioner in C.C. No.284 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magsitrate, Razole. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Simhadri, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri G. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.67 of 2002 of Nagaram police station/C.C. No.284 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole. The criminal petition and the material on record show that the petitioner and the other accused surrendered before the Court and were remanded to judicial custody during investigation and were later released on bail. The petitioner was stated to have appeared before the Court till 2004 and thereafter he was absent, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants against him. After five years, he applied for anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P. No.1183 of 2009 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Amalapuram, who dismissed the same on 27-07-2009 disbelieving the alleged sickness for five years disabling the petitioner from attending the Court. The learned Judge observed that the petitioner can surrender and appear before the trial Court and move for regular bail. The petitioner then approached this Court contending that the matter was settled before village elders, due to which he believed that he need not attend before the Court. He also confessed committing a mistake in filing a petition for anticipatory bail instead of applying to the trial Court for recall of warrant. He further claimed that the settlement of the matter before village elders was reported to the trial Court, which referred the case to Lok Adalat. It was only due to the pendency of the non-bailable warrants that he could not appear before the Lok Adalat for concluding the matter. If the allegations of the petitioner are true and the disputes are settled and are referred to Lok Adalat, the process of reconciliation can be facilitated by directing recall of the non- bailable warrants issued against the petitioner. While there is absolutely no doubt that the petitioner was not diligent in defending himself and he cannot justify his absence before the Court for more than five years, any such default can be directed to be compensated by imposing appropriate terms for recalling the non- bailable warrants pending against him. On his appearance before the trial Court, the trial Court can obtain appropriate personal bond from him with or without sureties for an appropriate sum in exercise of its judicial discretion to ensure the petitioner’s future presence before the Court. Therefore, the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner in C.C. No.284 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole shall be kept in abeyance for two weeks since now and shall be recalled in the event of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the credit of the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Razole and if he is appearing before the trial Court before the expiry of the said 15 days and in default of either of these conditions, the non- bailable warrants shall be executed against him after expiry of the said 15 days. In case of his compliance and appearance before the trial Court, the trial Court may, in exercise of its judicial discretion, obtain a personal bond from the petitioner with or without sureties for an appropriate sum to ensure his future attendance before the Court till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The criminal petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-08-2009 Svv