Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application disposed of subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- in favour of District Legal Services Authority Bulandshahr; applicant permitted to appear before and move an appropriate application before the trial Court for recalling the NBW dated 17.10.2024, to be decided expeditiously; interim protection from coercive action for 3 weeks or until such application is moved, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether the non-bailable warrant dated 17.10.2024 issued against the applicant in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2020 should be quashed.

Court's answer

The application was disposed of on condition that the applicant deposits Rs.5,000/- in favour of the District Legal Services Authority Bulandshahr, and the applicant may appear before and move an appropriate application before the trial Court for recalling the impugned order, which shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

For a period of 3 weeks, or until the applicant moves an application before the trial Court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

Key takeaways

The Court shall not entertain fictitious and repetitive personal exemption applications; if filed, such applications shall be dismissed with reasonable costs.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vinod Diwakar, J.) — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 10284 of 2025 (filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.), decided 26.5.2025. Applicant sought quashing of a Non Bailable Warrant dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Fast Track Court, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2020 (State v. Lalit Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.348 of 2019 under Sections 376-B I.P.C., PS Sikandraba. Counsel submitted the applicant's absence was due to illness; the State opposed. The Court did not itself quash the warrant: it disposed of the application subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- in favour of the District Legal Services Authority Bulandshahr, permitting the applicant to appear before and move a recall application before the trial Court, to be decided expeditiously; no coercive action for 3 weeks or until such application is moved, whichever is earlier; fictitious and repetitive personal exemption applications not to be entertained and, if filed, to be dismissed with reasonable costs.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89186

Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10284 of 2025 Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the Non Bailable Warrant dated 17.10.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Fast Track Court, District Bulandhshahr in Sessions Trial No.462 of 2020 (State v. Lalit Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.348 of 2019, under Sections 376-B I.P.C., Police Station Sikandraba, District Bulandshahr.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that impugned order is against the facts and law. The applicant was ill and he was taking treatment due to which he could not appear on the date fixed by the trial Court, hence, non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant.

Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- by the applicant in favour of District Legal Services Authority Bulandshahr. The applicant may appear and move an appropriate application before the trial Court for recalling the impugned order, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of 3 weeks or till the applicant moves an application before the trial Court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Further, the Court shall not entertain the fictitious and repetitive personal exemption application, and if filed, the same shall be dismissed with reasonable costs.

With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of .

Order Date :- 26.5.2025 / A.N. Mishra

(Vinod Diwakar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad