Allowed

Shakti Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2023/7970/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed a non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant for failing to appear in trial. The court noted the applicant was on bail and could not receive listing information. The application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to cooperate in the trial and not leave the district.

What did the court decide?

Non-bailable warrant dated 30.03.2022 and consequential orders set aside; applicant directed to cooperate in trial and remain in district.

Shakti Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:81305

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7970 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shakti Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary afÏdavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

This application has been filed for quashing the nonbailable warrant dated 30.03.2022 passed in Criminal Case No. 238 of 2021, (State Vs. Vikas Dubey & Ors.) arising out of F.I.R. No. 344 of 2021, under Sections 411, 413, 414, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant was enlarged on bail and on the assurance of his counsel, he went to Surat, Gujrat in relation to the employment. It is also submitted that the applicant could not receive the information about the listing of the case before the trial court, due to which, he could not appear before the court below on the date fixed and the court below has issued impugned non-bailable warrant. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is ready to appear before the court below and he will not leave the district till conclusion of the trial. It is, thus, submitted that impugned order dated 30.03.2022 and its consequential proceedings may be quashed.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant, but

¶11

does not dispute the fact that the applicant was on bail, but since he failed to cooperate in the trial, non-bailable warrant was issued.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the trial of the case in question is pending since 2021. It is also undisputed that applicant was enlarged on bail. However, he failed to appear before the court below on the date fixed and, therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued.

¶13

In view of the above facts and circumstances as well as the undertaking given by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, order dated 30.03.2022 and its consequential orders are hereby set aside.

¶14

The application stands allowed.

¶15

However, the applicant is directed to cooperate in the trial and shall not leave the District till conclusion of the trial.

¶16

In case of breach of the aforesaid directions by the applicant, the court below shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.12.2023 VKS

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shakti Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakti Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Arif and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

X Thru. His Natural Guardian Father, Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Ashish Kumar and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Poonam Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Ji Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Satyendra Kumar @ Munim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another