Disposed¶11

Raju v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2025A482/1196/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing application; non-bailable warrant issuance without service of summons/bailable warrant; NBW execution kept in abeyance for three weeks; direction to decide bail/recall application per Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth (2022) 11 SCC 676, Aman Preet Singh (2021) SCC Online SC 941; Sections 395/397/412 IPC; Case Crime No. 566 of 2014, P.S. Kotwali, Ghaziabad; Allahabad High Court; Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with direction: on the applicant appearing before the court below within three weeks and applying for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant, such application to be decided in light of the three Supreme Court judgments; execution of the non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for three weeks or until appearance, whichever is earlier. ¶11

Raju vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 3.5.2024 issuing a non-bailable warrant against the applicant without first satisfying itself on the service of summons/bailable warrants ought to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

¶8

Court's answer

The application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant appears before the court below within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant, his application shall be decided in light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth (2022) 11 SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh (2021) SCC Online SC 941.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Execution of the non-bailable warrant against the applicant is kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks from the date of the order or until the applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), by order dated 23.1.2025 in Application U/S 482 No. 1196 of 2025, disposed of an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order dated 3.5.2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Ghaziabad, whereby a non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant in Case No. 529 of 2015 (State vs. Raju and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 566 of 2014 under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC, allegedly without satisfying itself on service of summons/bailable warrants. The court did not directly quash the warrant; it directed that if the applicant appears before the court below within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the NBW, that application be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth v. State of U.P., 2022 (11) SCC 676, and Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, 2021 SCC Online SC 941, and kept execution of the NBW in abeyance for three weeks or until appearance, whichever is earlier.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12428

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1196 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Sri Harish Chandr, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the order dated 3.5.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 529 of 2015 (State vs. Raju and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 566 of 2014, under Sections 395, 397, 412 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad, whereby non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.

¶8

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.

¶9

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 without satisfying the service of summons or bailable warrants itself and reason to believe from absconding the process of the court.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have opposed the application.

¶11

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

¶12

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 .

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 A.P. Pandey

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepu and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Meena Khatoon vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Chandra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakshmi Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vipin Khari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another