High Court quashed non-bailable warrant issued against applicants in S.T. No. 02 of 2020 for not issuing summons first, directing expeditious bail disposal and prohibition of coercive action.
Order dated 02.01.2020 to extent of issuing NBW quashed; applicants directed not to face coercive action for 30 days if they move 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. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5148 of 2020
Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anshul Tiwari,Ashvini Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding along with impugned charge sheet dated 09.09.2019 as well as N.B.W dated 02.01.2020 in S.T. No. 02 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2019 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2) 5 Ka SC/ST Act, Police Station Saraymamrej, District Prayagraj (State Versus Pankaj and others), pending in the Court of Special Judge, (SC/ST) Act, Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in the FIR lodged by the opposite party no.2 with false and incorrect allegations; that the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet without fair and proper investigation; that the learned Special Judge, Allahabad upon submission of the charge sheet and taking of cognizance at the time of registration of the case, has simultaneously issued N.B.W. against the applicants; that no summons or notices were issued to the applicants upon submission of the charge sheet and issuance of N.B.W., outrightly without issuing summon at the first instance is wrong and amount to abuse of process of the Court; that applicants are ready to appear before the learned trial court and will seek bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. supported the impugned charge sheet.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicants, I find that upon submission of the charge sheet, learned Special Judge, Allahabad ought to have first issued summons or at the most bailable warrants to the applicants and directly issuance of N.B.W. is unwarranted. In view of above, order dated 02.01.2020 to the extent of issuing N.B.W against the applicants is liable to be quashed. Hence, the order dated 01.01.2020 to the extent of issuing N.B.W. is hereby quashed.
In view of the above, the present application is disposed of with the direction that if the applicants appear before the court below and move application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and in next 30 days from today, if they move application and seek bail, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
Order Date :- 17.2.2020 T.S.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether issuance of non-bailable warrant without prior summons constitutes abuse of process of court.
Whether the High Court can quash the non-bailable warrant order dated 02.01.2020.
What direction should be issued regarding the applicants' appearance for bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dharmendra Singh And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Harsh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
