Devesh Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

Devesh Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection only: execution of the non bailable warrant kept in abeyance for three weeks or until the applicant appears, whichever is earlier; upon appearance within three weeks and a fresh application for bail/recall of the non bailable warrant, the court below to decide it in light of Satender Kumar Antil, Siddharth and Aman Preet Singh. The warrant order of 14.12.2021 itself was not quashed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 14.12.2021 of the C.J.M., Meerut issuing a non bailable warrant against the applicant should be quashed in this application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. +1 more

Court's answer

The application is finally disposed of with a direction that in case 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, Siddharth and Aman Preet Singh.

Ratio / Principle

For a period of three weeks from today or until the applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier, execution of the non bailable warrant against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Court No. 72; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:79260) — single judge, Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.; Order Date 14.5.2025. APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13628 of 2025; Applicant: Devesh Kumar Tyagi; Opposite Parties: State of U.P. and another (opposite party No. 2 unnamed). The applicant moved under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to quash the order dated 14.12.2021 of the C.J.M., Meerut issuing a non bailable warrant against him in Criminal Case No. 6850 of 2017 (State vs. Kapil Rastogi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 267 of 2016, under Section 386 of I.P.C., P.S. Medical College, District Meerut. Counsel contended the applicant was on bail when the N.B.W. was issued, and that the warrant followed neither summons nor bailable warrant, contrary to the settled position that N.B.W. is a last resort after failure to respond to notices/summons and bailable warrant; the learned A.G.A. and opposite party No. 2 opposed. HOLDING (ratio): application finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant appears within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the non bailable warrant, the application be decided in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I., (2021) 10 SCC 773; Siddharth v. State of U.P., 2022 (11) SCC 676; and Aman Preet Singh v. C.B.I., 2021 SCC Online SC 941; execution of the N.B.W. kept in abeyance for three weeks or until appearance, whichever is earlier. The court did not itself rule on the legality of the warrant issuance.