Ramshankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025CRLA/10925/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-bailable warrant; N.B.W.; Section 82 Cr.P.C.; NBW proceedings initiation; failure to appear despite summons; no interference with trial court order; bail application expeditious disposal direction; Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI 2021 SCC Online SC 922; Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC; Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act; Special Judge SC/ST Act Allahabad; Session Trial No.1308 of 2013; Case Crime No.131 of 2001; P.S. Manda District Prayagraj; Criminal Appeal 10925 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Shekhar Kumar Yadav J.; appeal disposed with bail direction.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to interfere with the impugned order refused; appeal disposed of with a direction that if the appellant files a bail application before the court below, it shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in view of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra). ¶¶15

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 17.9.2025 initiating N.B.W./82 Cr.P.C. proceedings against the appellant suffers from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. +1 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The non-bailable warrant was issued because the appellant did not appear before the court concerned despite service of summons, and issuance of a non-bailable warrant is within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order; there is no infirmity or illegality in the said order, and the prayer made in the appeal is refused.

¶¶10

Key takeaways

The appeal is disposed of with the direction that if the appellant files a bail application before the court below, it shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in view of the settled law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) disposed of a criminal appeal directed against the order dated 17.9.2025 of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad in Session Trial No.1308 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No.131 of 2001 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Manda, District Prayagraj, whereby N.B.W./82 Cr.P.C. proceedings were initiated against the appellant. Held: the non-bailable warrant was issued because the appellant did not appear despite service of summons, and issuance of a non-bailable warrant is within the jurisdiction of the court concerned; there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the prayer for interference was refused. The appeal was nevertheless disposed of with a direction that if the appellant files a bail application before the court below, it shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in view of the settled law in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10925 of 2025

¶3

Ramshankar

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Ashok Kumar Singh Yadav	Yadav, Shesh Nath
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 86

¶6

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶7

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the order dated 17.9.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad in Session Trial No.1308 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.131 of 2001, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S.Manda, District- Prayagraj whereby the N.B.W./82 Cr.P.C. proceedings has been initiated against the appellant.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶9

A perusal of the record reveals that the non-bailable warrant was issued when the appellant did not appear before the court concerned despite service of summon. Issuance of non-bailable warrant is within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the appeal is refused.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays for a direction may be issued to the court below to decide the bail application of the appellant in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC

¶12

CRLA No. 10925 of 2025

¶13

¶14

922.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal is disposed of with the direction that in case the appellant filed bail application before the court below, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶16

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶17

November 26, 2025

¶18

Krishna*

¶19

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramshankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramshankar 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

Similar cases

Shailendra Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Mani Tripathi @ Golu Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Kumar Kushwaha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Kais and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Iqbal Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another