Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Saroj Thru. His Real Brother Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024/10065/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant and summoning order issued against a Member of Armed Forces posted in Jharkhand who was unable to attend proceedings. The dismissal was due to lack of material showing the warrant issuance was wrong at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Applicant allowed to file an application for cancellation of process or bail within six weeks, with process kept in abeyance.

Sanjay Kumar Saroj Thru. His Real Brother Pramod… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75376

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10065 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Saroj Thru. His Real Brother Pramod Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anamika Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

1. Heard Ms. Anamika Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused material available on record.

¶7

2. In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶8

3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned non-bailable warrant order dated 13.08.2024 as well as the impugned summoning order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the learned trial court concerned in Complaint Case No.2793 of 2009 titled Kailash Nath Yadav vs. Phoolchandra and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 147 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.24, Pratapgarh.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is serving in Armed Forces and

¶10

he is posted in Jharkhand. Being part of the Armed Forces, the applicant was unable to attend the court proceedings on the date so fixed and his absence led to the passing of the impugned order dated 13.08.2024, whereby the non-bailable warrant has been issued by the learned trial court. She has also submitted that the absence of the applicant on the date so fixed was neither intentional nor deliberate.

¶11

5. Her further submission is that the process of non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant is in contravention of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 9 SCC 791 and in Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 . She, thus, submits that the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

¶12

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that there is nothing on record to suggest that the process was not served against the applicant, in accordance with law. However, he has been unable to dispute the fact that the applicant is a Member of Armed Forces and is posted in Jharkhand and having regard to the nature of duties and least availability, he could not attend the court proceeding.

¶13

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that at this stage, there is no material available on record to reveal as to how and under what circumstances, the impugned non-bailable warrant order dated 13.08.2024 came to be issued against the applicant. Therefore, the instant application seeking quashing of impugned non-bailable warrant order dated 13.08.2024 as well as the impugned summoning order dated 03.05.2010 lacks merit, which deserves to be dismissed.

¶14

8. However, it is needless to mention here that in the eventuality of filing of any application by the applicant for cancellation of process issued against him/ praying for bail within six weeks from today, the learned court shall dispose of such application on its own merits keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin' case (supra), Inder Mohan Goswami's case (supra) and Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in MANU/ SC/ 1024/ 2021 and also having regard to the fact that the applicant is a Member of Armed Forces and is posted in Jharkhand, by keeping the process(s), which was issued against the applicant, in abeyance for the aforesaid period only.

¶15

9. It is made clear that, in case, the present applicant fails to avail the benefit as aforesaid

¶16

within the stipulated period, the same shall automatically cease to exist without any further reference to this Court.

¶17

10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶18

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 cks/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Kumar Saroj Thru. His Real Brother Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Saroj Thru. His Real Brother Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

X (Juvenile Delinquent) Thru. His Guardian Mother Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Sufiyan @ Arman Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Chandrika Singh and 02 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Lalit Narayan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shila Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another