JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:- "A. Quash the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 and order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the ACJM-V, Lucknow in Case No. 9782/2013 vide which Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued against the Applicant. As Annexure no.3. B. Permit the Applicant to appear through Counsel and participate in the proceedings before the Trial Court in accordance with Section 205 and 317 CrPC. C. Any other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be kindly granted in favour of the Applicant." 3. Sri Murtaza has stated that the petitioner is an old aged person of 85 years suffering various ailments, which are age related, therefore, he could not appear personally before the Court concerned at the time of framing charges, resultant thereof the court concerned has straight away issued non-bailable warrant against him, though the information regarding age and ailment was apprised to the court concerned. 4. Sri Murtaza has further submitted that in such a critical and ailing condition, the petitioner is willing to participate in the proceedings but has requested that he may be permitted to appear through counsel in terms of Sections 205 & 317 Cr.P.C. Attention has been drawn towards Rule 11 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), framed under Article 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereunder Rule 11 reads as under: "11. Judicial remand, framing of charge, examination of accused and proceedings under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 11.1 The Court may, at its discretion, authorize detention of an accused, frame charges in a criminal trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through video conferencing. However, ordinary judicial remand in the first instance or police remand shall not be granted through Video conferencing save and except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. However, ordinary judicial remand in the first instance or police remand shall not be granted through Video conferencing save and except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. 11.2 The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to be recorded in writing, examine a witness or an accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or record the statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through video conferencing, while observing all due precautions to ensure that the witness or the accused as the case may be, is free of any form of coercion, threat or undue influence. The Court shall ensure compliance with Section 26 of the Evidence Act." 5. The aforesaid Rules also defines the exceptional circumstances under Rule 2 (viii) as under: "2. Definitions.- (viii) "Exceptional circumstances" include illustratively a pandemic, natural calamities, circumstances implicating law and order and matters relating to the safety of the accused and witnesses." 6. Learned AGA has fairly assisted the Court and has submitted that non-bailable warrant should not have been issued straight away against any person unless the summon is issued and after verifying the fact that despite the service of summons, the accused person avoided the proceedings without having any cogent reasons, then bailable warrant may be issued and if, after service of bailable warrant, the accused person deliberately avoids the proceedings, in such exceptional circumstances, the non-bailable warrant can be issued as this law has been settled by the Apex Court in re; Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 . Therefore, learned AGA did not defend the impugned orders whereby the non-bailable warrants have been issued. 7. I appreciate the fair assistance of the learned AGA. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, at the very outset, I am constrained to observe that the manner in which the non-bailable warrant has been issued by the learned trial court is absolutely unacceptable and in derogation of the settled law of the Apex Court in re; Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) inasmuch as every citizen of the country including the accused person is having fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. I have already cautioned the learned trial courts in my earlier orders in certain other cases to ensure before issuing non-bailable warrants as to whether after service of summons and bailable warrants, the accused person has deliberately avoided the proceedings. Besides, in the present case, the petitioner was appearing before the court concerned but on account of his old age and age related ailments, he could not appear, therefore, the court concerned should not have issued non-bailable warrant straight away. 9. In terms of Section 11 of the Rules, the proceedings of the case in exceptional circumstances may be undertaken virtually and also in accordance with Sections 205 & 317 Cr.P.C. 10. Therefore, considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having regard the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Inder Mohan Goswami (supra), I hereby set aside/ quash the impugned orders dated 16.02.2024 and 28.02.2024 (supra), which have been enclosed as Annexure No.3 to this petition, at the admission stage. 11. I further direct the learned trial court to permit the petitioner/ applicant to appear virtually through counsel and participate in the proceedings strictly in accordance with Sections 205 & 317 Cr.P.C., for that, appropriate orders be passed and appropriate arrangements be done strictly in accordance with law. 12. It is made clear that the case of the present petitioner squarely covers with the definition "exceptional circumstances" (supra) inasmuch as he is an old aged ailing person, therefore, this order would confine to the present petitioner only as the benefit of this order may not be taken by other co-accused, if any. 13. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.