Padam Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Padam Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim relief only: execution of the non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for three weeks (or until the applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier); if the applicant appears within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the NBW, that application is to be decided by the court below in the light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth (2022) 11 SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh 2021 SCC Online SC 941.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.01.2025 issuing a non-bailable warrant against the applicant should be quashed, as prayed in the Section 528 BNSS application.

Court's answer

The application is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant appears before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail/recall of the 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 (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth (2022) 11 SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh 2021 SCC Online SC 941.

Ratio / Principle

For a period of three weeks from today, or till 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

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), November 4, 2025 — Application U/s 528 BNSS No. 38460 of 2025 (Padam Singh v. State of U.P. and Another) seeking quashing of the order dated 17.01.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Ist, Mathura in Session Trial No. 104 of 2016 (arising out of Case Crime No. 410 of 2012, P.S. Baldeo, District Mathura) whereby a non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant. Applicant's counsel contended the applicant was on bail when the warrant issued and that an NBW should be a last resort after summons and bailable warrants fail. The court did not adjudicate the merits of the quashing prayer: the application 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 NBW, that application shall be decided in the light of the observations 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; meanwhile execution of the NBW was kept in abeyance for three weeks or until the applicant's appearance, whichever is earlier.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38460 of 2025

Padam Singh

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Gaya Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Gaurav Kumar Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Ist, Mathura in Session Trial No. 104 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 410 of 2012, P.S. Baldeo, District Mathura, whereby NBW has been issued against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the 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 for the applicants and perusing record, the instant application is finally disposed of with a direction that in

NA528 No. 38460 of 2025

2

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 applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

November 4, 2025

MAA/-

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad