Dismissed¶11

Hukum Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025NA528/36972/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS; quashing petition; non-bailable warrant dated 06.10.2017; summoning order dated 07.01.2011; Complaint Case No. 324 of 2010 (17222 of 2024) Shekhar Babu v. Mukesh Tiwari; Sections 420, 323, 406, 504, 506, 452 IPC; disputed questions of fact; abuse of process; 30-day protection from coercive measures; bail direction per Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773; Allahabad High Court; Farrukhabad; Nand Prabha Shukla, J.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused. However, the applicants were permitted to apply for bail within 30 days, to be considered and disposed of expeditiously in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773, and no coercive measures shall be taken against them for 30 days or until the bail application is filed. ¶11

Hukum Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the non-bailable warrant dated 06.10.2017, the summoning order dated 07.01.2011 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 324 of 2010 under Sections 420, 323, 406, 504, 506, 452 IPC should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

¶10

Court's answer

At this stage it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants; all submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 528 BNSS, a power exercisable only where there is failure of justice, misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or an incorrect sentence or order, to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice; therefore no interference is required and the prayer to quash is refused.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

If the applicants apply for bail before the concerned court within 30 days, the bail application shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶15

Key takeaways

For a period of 30 days, or till the time of applying for bail before the court concerned, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.), December 1, 2025: Application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the non-bailable warrant dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, the summoning order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Vth, and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 324 of 2010 (Complaint Case No. 17222 of 2024), Shekhar Babu v. Mukesh Tiwari and others, under Sections 420, 323, 406, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad — REFUSED/DISPOSED OF. Held: on the material on record it could not be said that prima facie no offence was made out; the submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 528 BNSS, a power to be exercised only where there is failure of justice, misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, or an incorrect sentence or order, to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. However, if the applicants apply for bail within 30 days it shall be considered expeditiously in light of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773, and no coercive measures shall be taken against them for 30 days or until the bail application is filed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36972 of 2025

¶3

Hukum Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

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

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and quash the non-bailable warrant dated 06.10.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad as well as summoning order dated 07.01.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Vth, Room No. 14, Farrukhabad and entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 324 of 2010 (Complaint Case No. 17222 of 2024) Shekhar Babu v. Mukesh Tiwari and others, under Sections 420, 323, 406, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District-Farrukhabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad.

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. Only in cases, where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice. Therefore, no interference is required.

¶11

Accordingly, prayer of the applicants is refused.

¶12

However, considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants,

¶13

NA528 No. 36972 of 2025

¶14

¶15

it is directed that in case the applicants apply for bail before the concerned court within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 .

¶16

For a period of 30 days from today or till the time of applying the bail application before the court concerned, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants.

¶17

With the above observations, this application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of.

¶18

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶19

December 1, 2025

¶20

Aditya Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hukum Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukum Singh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chotalla Alias Pradeep vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagesh Chandra Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Smt Vineeta Devi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Dabas @ Kala and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratap Awana and Another vs State of U.P. and Another