HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.6188, 6193, 6194 and 6196 of 2009 Dated : 12.08.2009 Between : Bhimarasetti Nageswar Rao ….. Petitioner a n d 1) Nallamilli Raja Reddy 2) The State of A.P. ….. Respondents Criminal Petition Nos.6188, 6193, 6194 and 6196 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the second respondent, in all the criminal petitions. All the four criminal petitions are between the same parties concerning the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act said to have been committed by the petitioner against the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the first respondent in all the four petitions while disposing of the matters at the stage of admission, as no rights and interests of the first respondent are involved in the determination of these criminal petitions. The petitioner claims that in all the cases he is innocent of the offences and that the summonses sent to him were not personally served on him, but were returned un-served to the Court, due to which, he was unable to enter his appearance before the Court. He further claims that on coming to know about the issuance of non-bailable warrants against him by the orders of the trial Court dated 08.07.2009, he filed applications for recall of the said non-bailable warrants, which were dismissed by identical orders by the learned Magistrate on 30.07.2009. The petitioner further claims that he is ready to furnish satisfactory security and sureties for his appearance before the Court in future and that being a permanent resident of Visakhapatnam with sufficient properties, there can be no apprehension of his absconding from the jurisdiction of the trial Court. He, therefore, desired the non- bailable warrants issued against him be recalled. The impugned orders of the learned Magistrate on the petitions to recall the non-bailable warrants on the same grounds state that the accused did not show grounds to allow the petitions and to recall the warrants as intimation was served on him and he is intentionally avoiding to attend the Court. The learned Magistrate ultimately dismissed all the four petitions. The impugned orders did not show as to how the learned Magistrate disbelieved the denial of the petitioner about not receiving any intimation from the post man about communication sent to him through registered post for service of summons in criminal case in the absence of any affidavit or evidence of the postman concerned, before the trial Court, while the allegations of the petitioner about the postman being managed by the complainant are equally without any factual or evidentiary basis. The claims of the petitioner that he suffered from viral fever for two weeks from 02.04.2009 to 15.04.2009 and was advised complete bed rest by his doctor were not tested by the learned Magistrate by requiring the petitioner to produce any evidence in respect of the same. Similarly, the further claim of the petitioner that he was suffering from malaria fever later was also untested and in any view, the compulsive processes for appearance of the accused before the trial Courts in criminal cases are only to secure their presence for the purposes of progress in trial of cases, but not for imposing any punishment even before trial. The petitioner should be given, under the circumstances, an opportunity to enter his appearance in the criminal cases and put forward his defence without any fear of apprehension or detention, subject of course to his furnishing such security and sureties, which the trial Court may require to be furnished. Accordingly, the orders of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhanaptnam, in Crl.M.P.No.2170 of 2009 in C.C.No.1210 of 2008, Crl.M.P.No.2168 of 2009 in C.C.No.1209 of 2008, Crl.M.P.No.2169 of 2009 in C.C.No.1205 of 2008 and Crl.M.P.No.2167 of 2009 in C.C.No.1206 of 2008, dated 30.07.2009 are set aside and the petitioner is permitted to enter his appearance before the trial Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on such appearance, the trial Court may require him to execute personal bonds in each of the cases with or without sureties for such amounts as the trial Court may deem fit and appropriate on the facts and circumstances of the case and on execution of such bonds and on providing such sureties, the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner shall be recalled and till such time, the said non- bailable warrants shall be kept in abeyance. In case of default by the petitioner either in appearance or in executing the bonds as may be directed by the trial Court, the non-bailable warrants shall be executed. The criminal petitions are ordered, accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 12th August, 2009 Note : Furnish copy of the order by 17.08.2009 B/o. SUR