Dismissed

Shane Alam and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jun 2022A482/15473/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging a Non-Bailable Warrant (N.B.W.) issued against applicants. The court held that since applicants willfully avoided court proceedings after being on bail, the N.B.W. issuance by the trial court was not illegal.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed; applicant directed to approach trial court to recall N.B.W.

Shane Alam and Another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15473 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shane Alam And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Krishna, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sheetal Prasad, learned Brief Holder, for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of the present application applicants have challenged the order issuing N.B.W. dated 20.9.2021 in S.T. No.731 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.632 of 2019, under Sections 398 and 401 IPC, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad pending before Special Judge/ADJ-4, Moradabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that although charge sheet of the present matter was submitted against applicants in the year 2019 but due to Covid-19 Pandemic, they could not appear before the court concerned. He further submitted that the applicants have already been released on bail even during investigation and unfortunately on 2.12.2021 they were sent to Jail in some other case and, therefore, they could not appear before the trial court. It is further submitted that applicants have already been released on bail in the present matter. It is also submitted that they never intended to avoid the court proceeding and, therefore, N.B.W. issued against the applicants on

¶8

3.9.2021 should be quashed and they are ready to appear before the court concerned.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that he undertakes that in future the applicants will never abstain from the court proceeding.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the order sheet of the case shows that in the year 2020 the case was committed to the court of sessions and the date was fixed for framing of charges but applicants did not appear before the court concerned. Therefore, this fact clearly shows that after release on bail they willfully avoiding the court proceeding and in their absence on 3.9.2021, 'N.B.W.' was issued against them and, therefore, no illegality was committed by the trial court and it is always open for the applicants to appear before the court concerned and pray to recall N.B.W. issued against them.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

The record of the case shows that the present matter is of the year 2019 and even as per argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants they were released on bail in the present matter and the order sheet clearly shows that on 13.8.2020 the case was committed to the court of sessions and the date was fixed as 4.9.2020 for framing of charges but applicants failed to appear before trial court. Although, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that

¶13

they were arrested in some other matter and lodged in jail on 2.12.2021 but admittedly, N.B.W. issued against the applicants even prior to 2.12.2021,i.e., on 3.9.2021. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is unsustainable that due to the reasons that they were sent to jail in some other case and they could not appear before the court concerned and in the meantime, N.B.W. were issued against them.

¶14

I am in full agreement with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State that applicants can very well move the application before trial court to recall 'N.B.W.' issued against them. As there is no illegality in the order dated 3.9.2021 by which 'N.B.W.' was issued against them and the applicants can very well move to recall the same, the present application is devoid of merit and there is no need to give any further direction by this Court.

¶15

The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.6.2022 SKM

¶17

Digitally signed by SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.06.28 13:32:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shane Alam and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shane Alam and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guddu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramkumar Mishra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikrma Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meena @ Savita and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chintaharan Tiwari @ Cheeru Cheeru Maharaj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.