Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of non-bailable warrant due to single default in appearance was rejected by the Single Judge, who noted no infirmity in the order but granted 30 days to show cause.
Quashing of non-bailable warrant refused; 30 days granted to appear and move for recall.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22635 of 2019
Applicant :- Hamveer Singh And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kant Pandey,Mahabeer Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order of non-bailable warrant dated 3.6.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, District Agra in S.T. No. 499 of 2012 (State Vs. Mahanveer and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 388 of 2010, under Section 307/506 IPC, P.S. Malpura, District Agra, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Agra.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the accused-applicants have been consistently appearing before the trial court but on 3.6.2019 he could not appear because of the reason he has mentioned in paragraph 13 of the affidavit, hence it is prayed that the non-bailable warrant be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of quashing the nonbailable warrant.
I have gone through the order sheet, which has been annexed by the learned counsel for the applicants and it reveals that the case is listed for the defence evidence and on one date i.e. only 3.6.2019 the accused-applicants appear to have defaulted in appearing before the court on count of which the non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued. Since the said nonbailable warrant has been directed to be issued in order to procure the attendance of the accused, hence no infirmity is found in the impugned order.
Hence, the quashing of the non bailable warrant is refused.
However, it is directed that if the accused-applicants appear before the court and moves an application for recall of the non bailable warrant, the same would be disposed of by the trial court in accordance with law and in case, their recall is not
allowed, the bail application of the accused-applicants would be considered in accordance with law. If accused-applicants do not appear within the said period, the protection of 30 days would stand vacated and, thereafter, the trial court would be at liberty to take coercive action against them to secure their presence.
Order Date :- 14.6.2019 A.P. Pandey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the single default in appearance warrants issuance of non-bailable warrant without infirmity?
Whether the application for quashing of non-bailable warrant deserves acceptance?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Hamveer Singh And Anr
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
