Disposed

Yogesh @ Kartoos v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2025NA528/41358/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 528 BNSS to quash a non-bailable warrant issued in a case under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC. The court directed that if the applicant appears within three weeks and applies for bail/recall, the application be decided per Supreme Court guidelines, with warrant execution stayed meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

NBW execution kept in abeyance for three weeks or until appearance; bail/recall application to be decided per Supreme Court precedents.

Yogesh @ Kartoos vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41358 of 2025

¶3

Yogesh @ Kartoos

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Amit Kumar, Vinod Kumar Tirpathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 75

¶6

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶7

Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶8

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, in Criminal Case, arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2020, under Section 307, 504, 506 of I.P.C. whereby NBW has been issued against the applicant.

¶9

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.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the application.

¶11

Considering submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and perusing record, the instant application is finally disposed of with a direction that in 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

¶12

NA528 No. 41358 of 2025

¶13

¶14

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 .

¶15

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.

¶16

November 4, 2025

¶17

MAA/-

¶18

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

¶19

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

Yogesh @ Kartoos v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh @ Kartoos v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushma Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Fareed vs State of U.P. and Another

Akash and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Mohd Khalid vs State of U.P. and 5 Others