Disposed¶12

Purshottam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2025NA528/38718/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 38718 of 2025; applicant Purshottam vs State of U.P.; quashing of NBW dated 14.3.2013 to 22.8.2025 issued by Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras; Case No. 687 of 2010; Section 7/19 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; gross negligence of accused-applicant absent since 2013; relief denied; applicant directed to appear and apply for bail; trial Court to decide bail application expeditiously; application disposed of on October 14, 2025; counsel Alok Kumar Shukla, Ashish Goyal; G.A./AGA for the State.

What did the court decide?

None of the prayed-for relief (quashing of the NBW / stay) was granted; the applicant was directed to appear before the trial Court at Hathras and apply for bail, with the bail application to be heard and decided expeditiously. ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the NBW dated 14.3.2013 to 22.8.2025 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras in Case No. 687 of 2010 under Section 7/19 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be quashed and its effect and operation stayed, as prayed by the applicant.

¶9

Court's answer

The Court held that the applicant's failure since 2013 to appear before the Court at Hathras or meet his counsel amounted to gross negligence on the part of the accused-applicant, and consequently there was no justification to grant the relief prayed for (quashing of the NBW and stay of its operation).

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The accused-applicant was directed to appear before the trial Court at Hathras and apply for bail.

¶11

Key takeaways

The trial Court was directed that if the applicant's bail application is moved, it shall be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.) disposed of an APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS (No. 38718 of 2025) filed by Purshottam seeking quashing of the NBW dated 14.3.2013 to 22.8.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras in Case No. 687 of 2010 under Section 7/19 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and a stay of its effect and operation. Observing that since 2013 the applicant had never appeared before the Court at Hathras nor met his counsel, the Court held this to be gross negligence on the part of the accused-applicant, found no justification to grant the prayed-for relief, and instead directed him to appear before the trial Court and apply for bail, directing the trial Court to hear and decide any such bail application expeditiously in accordance with law. Decision dated October 14, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38718 of 2025

¶3

Purshottam

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Alok Kumar Shukla, Ashish Goyal : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 78

¶7

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

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

¶9

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to quash to quash the NBW dated 14.3.2013 to 22.8.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras in Case No. 687 of 2010 under Section 7/19 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P.S.- Sadabad, District- Hathras pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sadabad, Hathras. Further prayer has been made to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order.

¶10

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the present application has been moved challenging the order issuing non-bailable warrant dated 14.3.2013, however, since 2013 the applicant never bothered to come to the Court at Hathras and he never met his counsel, as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant of this case.

¶11

It is gross negligence on the part of the accused-applicant, hence there is no justification to grant relief which has been prayed by the accused applicant. However, he is directed to appear before the trial Court at Hathras and apply for bail and the trial Court is directed that if his bail application is moved it shall be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of .

¶13

October 14, 2025 Fhd

¶14

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Purshottam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshottam 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

Bashir Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Singh Alias Ashish Bhai vs State of U.P. and Another

Lokesh vs State of U.P.

Surendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Hela vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhanu Pratap vs State of U.P. and Another