4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appearing before the trial Court regularly prior to the pandemic. He submits that the petitioner is from Uttar Pradesh and having regard to the lock-down and restrictions on travelling, he was unable to attend the hearing of Sessions Case No. 384/2007 on 10th February 2021 and on 25th March 2021, pursuant to which, the trial Court issued non-bailable warrants as against the petitioner. He submits that on the said date i.e. on 10th February 2021, the petitioner’s advocate on record was held up in another Court and hence, was unable to file an exemption application before the trial Court and by the time, the advocate reached the Court, the trial Court had issued the non-bailable warrant as against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has never disputed his identity and has already given consent to conduct the trial, even in his absence. He submits that previously two witnesses were examined and that the petitioner had not disputed his identity and that most of the witnesses in the present case who are to be examined are police witnesses.
