Dismissed

Jitendranath Mishra @ Jitendra Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2023A482/40059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a short order quashing a non bailable warrant. The court held that since the applicant was acquitted and not served summons, the warrant should be cancelled and the applicant enlarged on bail subject to appearance within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Non Bailable Warrants cancelled; applicant enlarged on bail subject to appearing within 30 days; no coercive measures for 30 days.

Jitendranath Mishra @ Jitendra Mishra Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40059 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendranath Mishra @ Jitendra Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kirtikar Pande Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Present application has been filed to quash the Non Bailable Warrant dated 25.4.2022 and consequential order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2013 arising out of case crime No. 472 of 1995 under Sections 406 IPC, Police Station Kareily, District Prayagraj.

¶7

It has been submitted, without service of summons and without any ordersheet entry regarding such service, Bailable Warrant and then Non Bailable Warrant came to be issued against the applicant. Then, as to Bailable Warrant, there is no ordersheet to establish due service. Upon perusal of the ordersheet, a copy of which has been annexed to the present application, it does appear, an error has crept in the proceedings such that the Non Bailable Warrants have been issued against the applicant without prior service of summons and Bailable Warrants. It has been further submitted that the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment of three years. The applicant has already been acquitted by the trial Court. Therefore, the case of the present applicant clearly falls in category 'A' of the case Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2021) 10 S.C.C. 773.

¶8

In such facts, no useful purpose may be served in keeping this

¶9

application pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage.

¶10

Accordingly, it is provided, subject to the applicant appearing before the learned court below within 30 days from today and applying for bail, the Non Bailable Warrants may be cancelled by the learned court below and the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application to be filed by the applicant, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures be adopted against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶12

With the above directions, present application stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.1.2023 Faraz

¶14

Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendranath Mishra @ Jitendra Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendranath Mishra @ Jitendra Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sompal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hitesh Chawla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amaanurahmaan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dipak and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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