ORDER : 1. The instant misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the orders dated 18.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar in Criminal Misc. Case No.01/320/2024 (CIS No.2536/2024) whereby proceedings under Section 350 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is presently posted as Traffic Inspector, DCP Traffic Office, Jaipur. The basis for initiating proceedings under Section 350 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner is that during trial of a case (State vs. Dinesh, Criminal Case No. 27/185/12), the petitioner was called upon for recording his evidence as a prosecution witness but despite issuing summons for recording his evidence, he did not appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed (24.05.2024, 16.08.2024, 02.09.2024 and 18.09.2024) for this purpose for the so-called reason that he was busy in law and order duty and he was not permitted by his higher officers to attend the court proceedings. However, now evidence of the petitioner has been recorded before the court concerned. 3. Vide order dated 18.09.2024, learned Addl. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar issued notice to the petitioner and gave him opportunity to put his defence as to why he should not be punished under Section 350 Cr.P.C. after summary trial. After receiving such notice, the petitioner filed reply to the said notice wherein, he stated that he was busy in maintaining law and order situation and since departmental permission was not granted to him by his superiors for appearing in the court proceedings, he could not appear before the learned court concerned and that for this he has not showed any disobedience to the court. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner and other material available on record, the learned trial court was not satisfied with the reasons furnished by the petitioner and therefore, proceeded to initiate proceedings under Section 350(2) Cr.P.C. Hence this misc. petition. 4. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and perused the material available on record. 5. petition. 4. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and perused the material available on record. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was busy in maintaining law and order situation and he was not allowed by his superiors to attend the court proceedings, it cannot be said that the petitioner was disobedient to the court; and knowingly and intentionally refused to attend the court proceedings and is liable for proceedings under Section 350 (2) Cr.P.C. He submits that the petitioner was having a just excuse for his failure in attending the court proceedings. However, the learned trial court did not consider the reply and the annexed documents (radiograms) filed by the petitioner before initiating proceedings under Section 350 (2) Cr.P.C. He thus, prays that the orders impugned may be quashed and set aside and the proceedings may be dropped. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material available on record, it reveals that the learned trial court gave sufficient time and opportunities to the petitioner for appearance. The learned trial court while directing initiation of proceedings under Section 350 (2) Cr.P.C. also considered the reply and annexed documents and rightly held that attending court proceedings is also a part of maintaining law and order situation. Further, it has also been rightly held by the learned trial court that whether he was given permission by his superiors or not is a fact which can only be decided after trial. Thus, in my considered opinion the learned trial court has not committed any illegality or perversity in directing initiating proceedings under Section 350 (2) Cr.P.C. Upon being summoned by the learned trial court, the petitioner was legally bound to appear. Whether he was allowed or not by his superiors can be decided on the basis of evidence collected during trial. However, the learned trial court was not satisfied with the reply to the notice and took cognizance against the petitioner and directed him to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his appearance but the petitioner did not obey the directions and clearly refused to furnish personal bond. However, the learned trial court was not satisfied with the reply to the notice and took cognizance against the petitioner and directed him to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his appearance but the petitioner did not obey the directions and clearly refused to furnish personal bond. In that eventuality, the trial court may have taken the petitioner in custody immediately but considering the fact that the petitioner is a police personnel, he was given one more opportunity for furnishing bond. This Court fails to understand as to why, the petitioner who himself is a police personnel remained adamant in furnishing bonds. This conduct of the petitioner shows that he has no respect to the orders passed by the Courts. No one is above law and everyone has to follow law irrespective of his status. The very purpose of furnishing bonds by a person are just to secure his presence before court. It is a legal procedure with which everyone is bound. During trial, the petitioner will be given opportunity as per law to prove his innocence and if he succeeds in his attempts, he will not be punished in the matter. 8. Thus, I do not find any merit in the case of the petitioner and hence, the instant misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Needless to observe here that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all his grounds before the learned trial court at appropriate stages of trial in support of his case. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.