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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing relief dismissed as not pressed; application finally disposed of with liberty to appear before the trial court within three weeks and apply for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant (such application to be considered in light of Satender Kumar Antil, Siddharth and Aman Preet Singh); execution of the non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for three weeks or until appearance, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants, who were stated to be on bail and had allegedly not been served summons or a bailable warrant first, was sustainable, given the contention that an N.B.W. should be issued only as a last resort. +1 more

Court's answer

The application under Section 528 BNSS is 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 non-bailable warrant, his application shall be decided in the light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil, Siddharth and Aman Preet Singh.

Ratio / Principle

The relief of quashing the entire criminal proceedings as well as the summoning order is dismissed as not pressed.

Key takeaways

Execution of the non-bailable warrant against the applicant shall remain in abeyance for a period of three weeks from the date of the order or until the applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) — Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 41855 of 2025, Anant Rai and another v. State of U.P. and another: Prayer to quash the summoning order dated 06.11.2012 and order dated 10.08.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No. 3619 of 2012 (arising out of Criminal Case No. 35 of 2012) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 41, 411, 414 IPC, Police Station Jamaniya, District Ghazipur, whereby a non-bailable warrant was issued, was dismissed as not pressed. On the surviving grievance that the N.B.W. issued while the applicants were on bail without prior service of summons/bailable warrant, the Court finally disposed of the application directing that if the applicants appear within three weeks and apply for bail/recall of the N.B.W., the application be decided in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth v. State of U.P. 2022 (11) SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh v. CBI 2021 SCC Online SC 941; execution of the N.B.W. kept in abeyance for three weeks or until appearance, whichever is earlier.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41855 of 2025

Anant Rai And Another

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohit Verma, Saurabh Kumar Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 75

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Mohit Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pusp Raj Singh, brief holder for the State are present.

The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 06.11.2012 as well as order dated 10.08.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No. 3619 of 2012 arising out of Criminal Case No. 35 of 2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 41, 411, 414 of I.P.C., Police Station Jamaniya District Ghazipur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur whereby Non Bailable Warrant has been issued against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicants does not want to press the relief of quashing the entire proceedings as well as summoning order. The said relief is dismissed as not pressed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail at the time of issuing of 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. has opposed the application.

Considering submissions of learned counsel and perusing record, the instant

NA528 No. 41855 of 2025

2

application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 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 26, 2025 Ishan

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad