Application under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of a non-bailable warrant issued in a pending criminal case despite the applicants being on bail. The High Court kept the NBW in abeyance for three weeks, directing surrender and bail/recall applications to be decided per Supreme Court precedent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42150 of 2025
Kariya Alias Madhav Prasad And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Zafar Yab Khan, Shahroze Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
Sri Lavkush Bhat, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sahroz Khan, learned counsel for the applicants 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 05.11.2015 passed by Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Case no. 2400 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 325, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. whereby NBW has been issued against the applicants.
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. 42150 of 2025
2
case applicants appear 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 applicants appear before the court below, whichever is earlier, execution of non bailable warrant against applicants shall be kept in abeyance.
November 19, 2025
MAA/-
(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants should be recalled where summons and bailable warrant were not first served?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & AnotherRelied on
(2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & AnotherRelied on
2022 (11) SCC 676 · Who else cites this
Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through DirectorRelied on
2021 SCC Online SC 941 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kariya Alias Madhav Prasad And 6 Others
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
