Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application finally disposed of with directions: on the applicant's appearance before the court below within three weeks and application for bail/recall of the N.B.W., that application is to be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth 2022 (11) SCC 676, and Aman Preet Singh 2021 SCC Online SC 941; meanwhile execution of the non-bailable warrant is kept in abeyance for three weeks or until appearance, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether relief should be granted on the applicant's prayer to quash the 30.7.2011 order issuing the non-bailable warrant, given his contentions that no summons or bailable warrant preceded the warrant and that an N.B.W. should issue only as a last resort. +1 more

Court's answer

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was 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 the light of the observations made in the Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth (2022) 11 SCC 676, and Aman Preet Singh (2021 SCC Online SC 941).

Ratio / Principle

For three weeks from the order date, or until the applicant appears before the court below (whichever is earlier), execution of the non-bailable warrant against the applicant is kept in abeyance.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11427 of 2025 (described in the body as an application under Section 482 CrPC), order dated 8.4.2025: Ajay Kumar sought quashing of the order dated 30.7.2011 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Mathura, in Case No. 637/IX of 2007 (arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2007, under Section 406 I.P.C., P.S. Raya, District Mathura), whereby a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. He contended he was on bail when the N.B.W. issued, that no summons or bailable warrant had preceded it, and that an N.B.W. should issue only as a last resort. Without deciding the merits, the Court finally disposed of the application with a direction that, on his appearance before the court below within three weeks and an application for bail/recall of the N.B.W., 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; execution of the N.B.W. stands in abeyance for three weeks or till appearance, whichever is earlier.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51171

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11427 of 2025

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Sri Garun Pal Singh, 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 30.7.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Mathura, in Case No. 637/IX of 2007 (State vs. Ajay Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2007, under Section 406 of I.P.C., P.S. Raya, District Mathura, whereby non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was on bail at the time of issuing non bailable warrant. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without satisfying itself that the summon and other process for attendance has been served. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the position of law. It is settled position of law that N.B.W. should be issued as a last resort after the litigant fails to respond the notices/summons and bailable warrant. It is further submitted that non-bailable warrant has been issued without issuing any summon and bailable warrant.

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 :- 8.4.2025 A.P. Pandey

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