Applicant sought quashing of a non-bailable warrant issued in a robbery case without proof that summons or bailable warrants had been served. The High Court disposed of the application directing him to appear within three weeks and apply for bail or recall of the warrant, keeping its execution in abeyance meanwhile.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174971
Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21413 of 2024
Applicant :- Jai Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of Up Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar,Neeraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Sri Neeraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the order dated 27.08.2001, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, in Case No. 664/IX/2001, (New Case No. 5036/11/2013), (State v. Jai Prakash) arising out of Case Crime No. 199 of 2001, under Sections 392 and 411 of IPC, Police Station Koshi Kalan, District Mathura, whereby non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed by the court without satisfying itself that the summon and other process for attendance has been served and without issuing any summon or bailable warrant, direct N.B.W. has been issued.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and law provided in this regard. It is further submitted that order of the non-bailable warrant has been passed on 17.09.2004 without satisfying the service of summons or bailable warrants itself and reason to believe from absconding the process of the court.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have opposed the application.
Considering submissions of learned counsel and perusing record, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of with a
direction that in case applicant appears before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail/recall of non bailable warrant, his application shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 2022 (11) SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director 2021 SCC Online SC 941 .
For a period of three weeks from today or till applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier, execution of non bailable warrant against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.
Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Akram
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash the non-bailable warrant issued without proof of service of summons should be allowed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & AnotherRelied on¶13
(2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & AnotherRelied on¶13
2022 (11) SCC 676 · Who else cites this
Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through DirectorRelied on¶13
2021 SCC Online SC 941 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jai Prakash
State Of Up
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
