Manki Tiwari Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Manki Tiwari Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the quashing prayer; conditional protection afforded: if the applicant surrenders before the court below within three weeks and prefers a bail application, the trial court is to decide it as expeditiously as possible taking into account the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (AIR 2022 SC 3386); and for three weeks from the date of the judgment no coercive action is to be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Barabanki, and the further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 659 of 2023 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Barabanki, should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he did not want to press the application and that the applicant would surrender before the trial court and apply for bail; the court accordingly did not adjudicate the merits of the quashing prayer.

Ratio / Principle

The application stands disposed of (as not pressed).

Key takeaways

It is directed that if the applicant surrenders before the court below within three weeks and prefers a bail application, the trial court shall decide that bail application as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).ratio¶13
For a period of three weeks from the date of this judgment, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH), COURT NO. 16 — APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 10854 of 2024 (decided October 8, 2025 by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.). Applicant Manki Tiwari (counsel Surya Narayan Mishra) had sought quashing of the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Barabanki under Ss. 451, 323, 356 and 379 I.P.C. in the matter captioned Neha Shukla Vs. Anoop Tiwari and others (P.S. Ram Nagar, District Barabanki), together with cessation of further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 659 of 2023 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Barabanki (Annexure no. 1). After arguing at some length, counsel stated he did not wish to press the application and that the applicant would surrender before the trial court and apply for bail. The court thereupon disposed of the application without adjudicating its merits, directing that (i) if the applicant surrenders within three weeks and files a bail application, the trial court shall decide it as expeditiously as possible taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (AIR 2022 SC 3386), and (ii) for three weeks no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10854 of 2024

Manki Tiwari

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surya Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shambhunath Mishra

Court No. - 16

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA, Sri Shambhu Nath Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

The present application has been with the following main relief:

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.11, Barabanki, Us-451,323,356 and 379 I.P.C., (Neha Shukla Vs. Anoop Tiwari and others) Police Station-Ram Nagar, District-Barabanki, and further proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 659 of 2023, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Barabanki, (Contained as Annexure no.1 to this petition) in the interest of. justice."

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not want to press this application. However, he states that applicant will surrender before the trial court and apply for bail. He has submitted that applicant may be granted the benefit of the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (AIR 2022 SC 3386).

It is, therefore, directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the Court below within three weeks from today and prefers bail application, the trial court will decide the said bail application, as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

A482 No. 10854 of 2024

2

For a period of three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

The application stands disposed of .

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

October 8, 2025

Sachin

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench