Disposed¶13

Nadeem v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2025NA528/36457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nadeem v. State of U.P. and Another; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 36457 of 2025; Section 528 BNSS; non-bailable warrant (NBW); NBW recall application; bail application; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur; interim protection from arrest for 30 days; continuous appearance of accused through counsel; order-sheet dated 21.04.2025; successive jumping of bail; Avnish Saxena, J.; disposed on September 22, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection: the applicant is not to be arrested for 30 days, enabling him to move an appropriate NBW recall or bail application before the trial court; the trial court is requested to consider his continuous appearance through counsel and the reason for his absence and pass a sympathetic order, keeping in view that successive jumping of bail cannot be ignored.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the non-bailable warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, when the accused-applicant was continuously appearing before the trial court.

¶4

Court's answer

Issuance of notice to opposite party no. 2 was unnecessary because the matter pertains solely to issuance of a non-bailable warrant.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The applicant shall not be arrested for 30 days, within which period he may move an appropriate application (NBW recall or bail) before the trial court.

¶8

Key takeaways

A request was made to the trial court to consider that the applicant was continuously appearing through counsel, to consider the reason for his absence on the date fixed during his release on bail, and to pass an order sympathetically; however, successive jumping of bail is not to be ignored.ratio¶12
The application under Section 528 BNSS was disposed of accordingly.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Avnish Saxena, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 36457 of 2025, Nadeem v. State of U.P. and Another, decided September 22, 2025 — Challenge to a non-bailable warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur on 20.03.2025 despite the accused-applicant's continuous appearance before the trial court (order-sheet dated 21.04.2025 bearing his signature). Held: no notice to opposite party no. 2 was necessary as the matter pertained to issuance of a non-bailable warrant; the applicant was protected from arrest for 30 days to enable him to move an appropriate NBW recall or bail application before the trial court; the trial court was requested to consider his continuous appearance through counsel and the reason for his absence on the date fixed during his release on bail and to pass a sympathetic order, while noting that successive jumping of bail is not to be ignored. Application disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36457 of 2025

¶2

Nadeem .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Dubey, Santosh Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 79

¶3

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶4

Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appears for the applicant and submits that challenge before this Court is the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, issuing non-bailable warrant against the accused-applicant on 20.03.2025, though the accusedapplicant was continuously appearing before the Court. He has shown the copy of order-sheet of trial court dated 21.04.2025, wherein the accused has put his signature, hence he seeks interference by this Court.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶6

There is no point in issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 as the matter pertains to issuance of non-bailable warrant.

¶7

At this juncture, learned counsel prayed that the interest of the applicant may be protected till he files the NBW recall application or bail application, as the case may be, before the Court concern.

¶8

The applicant may not be arrested for 30 days from today during which period the applicant may move appropriate application before the trial court.

¶9

Request is made to the trial court to consider that the applicant

¶10

NA528 No. 36457 of 2025

¶11

¶12

was continuously appearing in the trial represented by a counsel. Further to consider the reason for his absence on the date fixed during his release on bail and pass an order sympathetically, but successive jumping of bail is not to be ignored.

¶13

The application is, accordingly disposed of.

¶14

September 22, 2025 MN/-

¶15

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nadeem v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases