JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, State of Assam. 2. The two petitioners have approached this Court by the instant criminal petition seeking to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court available under Section 528 , Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [ BNSS ], 2023 to assail two Orders, dated 06.05.2023 and dated 04.03.2024, passed during the course of proceedings of Sessions Case no. 70[DH]/2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji [‘the Trial Court’, for short]. By the Order dated 06.05.2023, the Trial Court by declaring the petitioner no. 1 as an absconder, has decided to file the case against him for the time being. By the subsequent Order dated 04.03.2024, by declaring the petitioner no. 2 as an absconder, the Trial Court has decided also to file a case against him for the time being. 3. In order to appreciate the nature of challenge made in this criminal petition, it is necessary to narrate the relevant and necessary events leading to the passing of the said two Orders. 4. It has emerged from the materials brought on record that against the two petitioners herein along with another accused person, a case, Gogamukh Police Station Case no. 218/2019 was registered for commission of offences under Sections 120B/307/379, INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC] read with Section 34 , IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a Charge-Sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC came to be laid by the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case finding prima facie case against the three accused persons for the offences under Sections 120B/450/307/323/34, IPC. On submission of the charge-sheet and after commitment, the case has been registered as Sessions Case no. 70[DH]/2019. 5. After registration of the case as Sessions Case no. 70[DH]/2019, the petitioner no. 2 and the other charge-sheeted accused person, Smti. Bornali Begum Sonowal appeared before the Trial Court on 25.11.2019 on receipt of summons and filed a petition, Petition no. 1794/2019 with a prayer to allow them to remain on previous bail. The Trial Court allowed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner no. 2 to remain on previous bail on 25.11.2019. On 25.11.2019, another petition, Petition no. 1793/2019 was filed on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 showing cause of absence of his bailor and prayed for fixation on another date. The Trial Court allowed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner no. 2 to remain on previous bail on 25.11.2019. On 25.11.2019, another petition, Petition no. 1793/2019 was filed on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 showing cause of absence of his bailor and prayed for fixation on another date. The said prayer made on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 was also allowed and the petitioner no. 1 was allowed to go on previous bail till the next date, 22.01.2020. On 22.01.2020, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 to allow him to remain on previous bail was allowed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court on 22.01.2020 posted the case on 01.04.2020 for hearing/consideration of charge. 6. This Court is agreeable to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that during the subsequent period, the court proceedings were affected due to emergence and continuance of Covid-19 pandemic. On 17.02.2022, the other charge-sheeted accused person was found to be present before the Trial Court whereas the two petitioners herein were found absent without taking any steps. From the Order dated 17.02.2022, it can be noticed that the Trial Court had ordered issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest [NBWA] against both the petitioners. 7. On 20.04.2022, the petitioner no. 2 made an appearance before the Trial Court with a petition, Petition no. 600/2022 showing cause of his absence on the previous date and made a prayer to allow him to remain on previous bail. Allowing the said prayer, the Trial Court recalled the NBWA. On that day, the petitioner no. 1 was found absent without any steps. The Trial Court ordered for issuance of NBWA against him. During the subsequent period, the Trial Court finding continuous absence of the two petitioners, decided to file the case against them and proceeded with the trial against the 3 rd accused person, namely, Smti. Bornali Begum Sonowal. 8. During the course of the proceedings in the subsequent period, the Trial Court ordered for publication of proclamation against the two petitioners after reaching a satisfaction that the two accused persons were evading processes of the Court/execution of the warrant of arrest. Bornali Begum Sonowal. 8. During the course of the proceedings in the subsequent period, the Trial Court ordered for publication of proclamation against the two petitioners after reaching a satisfaction that the two accused persons were evading processes of the Court/execution of the warrant of arrest. After taking evidence as regards the procedure followed for publication of the proclamation and the reports of the Executing Officer [E.O.] regarding abscondance and non- traceability of the petitioners, the Trial Court by the Orders, impugned herein, proceeded to declare the two petitioners as proclaimed persons. 9. From the materials on record, it has clearly emerged that the two petitioners initially responding to the process issued by the Trial Court, appeared before it. On prayers being made by them, both the petitioners were allowed to remain on previous bail. 10. It has been averred by the petitioner no. 1 that he was unable to appear before the Trial Court during the reference period because he lost his communication with the previous engaged counsel. He also lost his mobile phone containing the mobile phone number of his engaged counsel. As a result, he was not aware of the dates fixed by the Trial Court. It is further averred by the petitioner no. 1 that he was suffering from poor financial condition and for which he was unable to bear the cost to engage another counsel to know the present status of the case. 11. The petitioner no. 2 has averred that he was also unable to appear before the Trial Court because he also lost his communication with the previous engaged counsel after Covid- 19 pandemic and he was also unaware about issuance of NBWA and publication of Proclamation. The petitioner no. 2 has further averred that he was out of station for his work to meet the financial needs of his family being as a sole bread earner and could not communicate with his engaged counsel. As a result, he was unaware of the dates fixed by the learned Trial Court. 12. It is relevant to note that the trial proceeded against third charge-sheeted accused person, namely, Smti. Bornali Begum Sonowal ended on 03.08.2024 as on that day, the Trial Court had delivered its Judgment in Sessions Case no. 70[DH]/2019 against Smti. Bornali Begum Sonowal acquitting her from the charges under Section 120B/450/307/323/34, IPC. 13. 12. It is relevant to note that the trial proceeded against third charge-sheeted accused person, namely, Smti. Bornali Begum Sonowal ended on 03.08.2024 as on that day, the Trial Court had delivered its Judgment in Sessions Case no. 70[DH]/2019 against Smti. Bornali Begum Sonowal acquitting her from the charges under Section 120B/450/307/323/34, IPC. 13. It is already evident that the two petitioners were well aware of the proceedings of Sessions Case no. 70[DH]/2019 as far back as on 25.11.2019. Despite being allowed to remain on previous bail, the two petitioners were absent on subsequent dates of hearing of Sessions Case no. 70[DH]/2019 for a period longer than five years. The reasons shown by the two petitioners are not ones which can be believed for acceptance. The conduct of the two petitioners have prima facie demonstrated that they had scant respect to the process of the court. They have disregarded the process of law with impurity. They had flagrantly refused to appear before the Trial Court for a period of longer than five years whereas the Trial Court had continued the proceedings waiting for the appearance of the two petitioners for continuation of the trial for more than five years. 14. In so far as issuance of NBWAs is concerned, the Court is to be guided by the parameters set forth in Section 87 , CrPC/ Section 90 , BNSS . As per Clause [a] of Section 87 , CrPC/ Section 90 , BNSS , if the Court has reason to believe that the person has absconded or will not obey the summons, the Court is justified to issue a warrant of arrest. Under Section 87 , CrPC/ Section 90 , BNSS , if summons is proved to have been duly served on the person and the person has failed to appear without reasonable excuse, the Court would be justified to issue a warrant of arrest to secure such person’s appearance before it. 15. The fact of preferring the instant criminal petition after the acquittal of the co-accused person on 03.08.2024 is a matter to be taken into note of. 16. As the two Orders, assailed herein are found to have been passed observing the procedure laid down in Section 87 of the Code/ Section 89 of the BNSS , this Court does not find any iota of merit in the instant criminal petition. Resultantly, the same is dismissed. 17. 16. As the two Orders, assailed herein are found to have been passed observing the procedure laid down in Section 87 of the Code/ Section 89 of the BNSS , this Court does not find any iota of merit in the instant criminal petition. Resultantly, the same is dismissed. 17. A copy of this order is to be sent to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji for information.