Disposed¶35

Mukesh Kalyan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2025NA528/14688/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS application; exemption from personal appearance; appearance through pleader/counsel; Section 228 BNSS; Section 91 BNSS bond; Section 138 N.I. Act; dishonour of cheque; summoning order dated 28.6.2024; Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No.8 Agra; Complaint Case No.6536 of 2024 Mangelal Vs. Mukesh Kalyan; Police Station Kagaraul District Agra; Sharif Ahmed 2024 INSC 363; conditions for dispensing personal attendance; NA528 No. 14688 of 2025; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; decided November 13, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Exemption from personal appearance: on filing of an application in terms of Section 228 BNSS, the court concerned to dispense with the applicant's personal attendance and permit appearance through pleader/counsel subject to conditions (a)-(l); the application stands disposed of on those terms. ¶35

Mukesh Kalyan vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, prosecuted under Section 138 N.I. Act, should be exempted from personal appearance and permitted to appear before the trial court through pleader/counsel in terms of Section 228 BNSS, subject to conditions.

¶9

Court's answer

On the applicant filing an application in terms of Section 228 of BNSS, the court concerned is directed to dispense with the personal attendance of the applicant and permit him to appear through pleader/counsel, subject to the enumerated conditions.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Condition (a): the applicant shall appear before the court concerned through counsel on the next date or within 20 days, whichever is earlier; in default, the exemption order and direction automatically stand vacated.

¶21

Key takeaways

Condition (b): the applicant shall execute a bond with or without sureties for his appearance to the satisfaction of the court concerned in terms of Section 91 of BNSS; in default, the order stands vacated.ratio¶22
Failure of the pleader/counsel to appear when the matter is taken up will be construed as absence of the applicant, whereafter the court concerned may take measures to enforce the applicant's personal attendance as required under law.ratio¶26
The court concerned may, at any stage, direct the personal attendance of the applicant by order in writing and enforce such attendance in accordance with law; police authorities are obliged to execute any summons or warrant issued on account of the counsel's absence or otherwise.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by an accused in a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint case (Complaint Case No.6536 of 2024, Mangelal Vs. Mukesh Kalyan, P.S. Kagaraul, District Agra) which sought quashing of the entire proceedings and the summoning order dated 28.6.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.8, Agra. Relying on Sharif Ahmed and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2024 INSC 363, and noting that the case arose out of dishonour of cheque with no allegation of criminal history, tampering or non-cooperation, the Court directed that if the applicant files an application in terms of Section 228 BNSS, the trial court shall dispense with his personal attendance and permit him to appear through pleader/counsel, subject to conditions: appearance through counsel on the next date or within 20 days; execution of a bond under Section 91 BNSS; affidavits of permanent and current address with contact number and e-mail; an affidavit not to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses; intimation of any change of address; mandatory presence of the engaged counsel, whose absence is to be construed as the applicant's absence; no unnecessary adjournments by any party; and liberty to the court to compel personal attendance in writing and to take coercive measures for tampering or unjustified delay. In default of the conditions, the exemption order automatically stands vacated. Application disposed of on November 13, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14688 of 2025

¶3

Mukesh Kalyan

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Ajay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 76

¶6

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings as well as summoning order dated 28.6.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.8, Agra under Section 138 N.I. Act arising out of Complaint Case No.6536 of 2024, Mangelal Vs. Mukesh Kalyan, Police Station Kagaraul, District Agra.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that ends of justice would be served if the applicant is permitted to appear before the court concerned through counsel in terms of Section 228 BNSS.

¶10

3-A. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant undertakes to ensure presence of his Counsel/Pleader before the court concerned on each date fixed. It is further submitted that the applicant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and will participate in the trial court proceedings through the Advocate/Pleader. It is further submitted that the applicant will have no objection in the event the evidence is recorded in the presence of Advocate/Pleader of the applicant.

¶11

The applicant is subjected to prosecution for the following offence:-

¶12

(i) The applicant is subjected to an offence under section 138 Neotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The punishment provided under the aforesaid Section is for imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.

¶13

NA528 No. 14688 of 2025

¶14

¶15

The present case arises out of dishonour of cheque. It is not the case of the State that the applicant has any previous criminal history or the applicant may tamper with the evidence. It has also not been suggested on behalf of opposite party that the applicant would flee away from justice or that applicant has not co-operated at the time of investigation.

¶16

The Supreme Court in the case of Sharif Ahmed and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2024 INSC 363 in respect of granting exemption from personal appearance has held as under in paragraph 47:-

¶17

" Further, the observation that there is no provision for granting exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail, is not correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under the Code [Section 205 of the Code. also see Section 317 of the Code] should not be read in a restrictive manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail. This Court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Another v. Rani Jethmalani (1979) 4 SCC 167, held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance should be exercised liberally, when facts and circumstances require such exemption. [see also, Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad, (2020) 12 SCC 695]. Section 205 states that the Magistrate, exercising his discretion, may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused while issuing summons, and allow them to appear through their pleader. While provisions of the Code are considered to be exhaustive, cases arise where the Code is silent and the court has to make such order as the ends of justice require. In such cases, the criminal court must act on the principle, that every procedure which is just and fair, is understood as permissible, till it is shown to be expressly or impliedly prohibited by law. "

¶18

Considering the nature of controversy, it is directed that in case application in terms of Section 228 of BNSS is filed by applicant, the court concerned to dispense with the personal attendance of applicant and the applicant be permitted to appear through pleader/counsel subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

NA528 No. 14688 of 2025

¶20

¶21

(a) The applicant shall appear before the court concerned through counsel on the next date or within 20 days from today whichever is earlier. In default, the present order and direction shall automatically stand vacated.

¶22

(b) The applicant shall execute bond with or without sureties for his appearance to the satisfaction of the court concerned in terms of Section 91 of BNSS. In default, the present order and direction shall automatically stand vacated.

¶23

(c) The applicant shall on affidavit submit his permanent address as well as the current address of residence before the court concerned within 15 days from today. The applicant shall also submit before the court concerned the contact number (if any) of the applicant as well as the e- mail address (if any) of the applicant.

¶24

(d) The applicant shall also submit an affidavit before the court concerned that he would not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses during the pendency of the trial.

¶25

(e) In the event, the applicant changes address of residence, he shall submit an affidavit with regard to change of address within two weeks before the court concerned.

¶26

(f) It shall be the duty of the applicant to ensure that the pleader/counsel engaged by the applicant is present before the court concerned on the date fixed without exemption. The failure on the part of the pleader/counsel to appear before the court concerned when the matter is taken up will be construed as absence of applicant and the court concerned, thereafter, would be at liberty to take such measures for enforcing the personal attendance/personal appearance of the applicant as may be required under law.

¶27

(g) The applicant shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the court concerned. In the event, the counsel/pleader engaged by applicant is not available, it shall be the duty of the applicant to engage another counsel and ensure that the newly engaged counsel is present before the court concerned for progress of the case.

¶28

NA528 No. 14688 of 2025

¶29

¶30

(h) The court concerned at any stage of proceeding can direct personal attendance of applicant by order in writing and that if necessary enforce such attendance in accordance with law. It is further provided, where court concerned issues any summon or warrant on account of absence of counsel for applicant before the court concerned or in respect of any other matter, the police authorities shall be obliged under law to execute the summon or warrant and ensure the attendance of the applicant before the court concerned.

¶31

(i) Whenever the court concerned directs personal attendance of the applicant before the court concerned, it shall be duty of the applicant to remain present before the court concerned and to ensure that the trial court proceedings are not adjourned on account of absence of the applicant. It shall be the duty of the counsel engaged by applicant to inform the applicant with regard to the progress of the case and, in the event, the personal attendance of the applicant is required. The noncommunication by the counsel for the applicant about the progress of the case or the order of the court concerned for personal attendance of the applicant shall not be permissible as defence on behalf of the applicant.

¶32

(j) The prosecution/police authority/complainant shall ensure that the witnesses are produced before the court concerned without delay as and when directed by the court concerned.

¶33

(k) The court concerned shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶34

(l) The court concerned will be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law where the applicant is found to be tampering with the evidence or delaying the trial without any justification.

¶35

Subject to the aforesaid observations/directions, the present application stands disposed of .

¶36

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶37

November 13, 2025 Bhaskar

¶38

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kalyan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kalyan 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

Chhotey Lal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Reshpal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kalyan vs State of U.P. and Another

Neelam Singh vs State of U.P. and Another