The High Court refused to quash a Non-Bailable Warrant on the ground that disputed facts require trial, but directed no coercive action be taken for 30 days pending a potential bail application or surrender.
Quashing of N.B.W. refused; no coercive action for 30 days; applicant directed to apply for recall of N.B.W. or surrender for bail.
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. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26058 of 2019
Applicant :- Aamir @ Tuiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.
This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking quashing of the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 12.10.2017 passed by 13th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Agra in Special Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 235 of 2015, under section 8/20 of N. D. P.S. Act, Police Station - Sadar, District- Agra pending in the court of 13th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Agra.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 .
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the non-bailable warrant order pending before the court concerned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the nonbailable warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC).
For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the above directions, present application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.7.2019/ssm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing of the Non-Bailable Warrant and proceedings be allowed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. given that no offence is clearly disclosed.
Whether coercive action can be taken against the applicant during the specified period.
Whether the applicant's application for bail in rent of Recall of Non-Bailable Warrant can be considered if filed within 30 days or appears and surrenders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful HaqReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 · Who else cites this
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004 (57)ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶10
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aamir @ Tuiya
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
