Mukesh Tiwari Alias Dev Kumar vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

Mukesh Tiwari Alias Dev Kumar vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Non-bailable warrant issued against the accused-applicant quashed, subject to the applicant appearing before the trial court within 30 days and not being arrested for 30 days from the date of this decision, during which period the applicant may move an appropriate application before the trial court; trial court additionally requested to weigh counsel's lapse and the reason for absence sympathetically while not ignoring successive bail-jumping.

Issue for consideration

Whether the processes (non-bailable warrants) issued on 19.04.2025 in S.T. No. 661 of 2019 against the accused-applicant, whose alleged non-appearance resulted from jaundice and his counsel's failure to send the exemption application, should be quashed by this Court.

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of counsel, this Court quashed the non-bailable warrant issued against the accused-applicant, subject to the conditions that the applicant appear before the trial court within 30 days and not be arrested for 30 days from the date of this decision, during which period the applicant may move an appropriate application before the trial court.

Ratio / Principle

A request is made to the trial court to take into account that the accused was being represented by a counsel who did not appear in the case and did not move an exemption application, even though the vakalatnama has not been withdrawn.

Key takeaways

The trial court is further requested to consider the reason for the accused's absence on the date fixed during his release on bail and to pass an order sympathetically; however, successive jumping of bail is not to be ignored.ratio¶14
This Court determined there was no point in issuing notice upon opposite party no. 2, as the matter pertains to jumping of bail.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 42389 of 2025, decided November 10, 2025: filed by accused-applicant Mukesh Tiwari alias Dev Kumar to quash the processes issued on 19.04.2025 in S.T. No. 661 of 2019 (State Vs. Mukesh Tiwasri @ Dev Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 1525 of 2018, Sections 302, 364, 201 IPC, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj. Counsel argued the applicant's non-appearance followed April jaundice and his counsel's failure to send the exemption application. The Court quashed the non-bailable warrant subject to conditions: appearance before the trial court within 30 days and no arrest for 30 days, within which the applicant may move an appropriate application. The trial court was asked to consider that counsel neither appeared nor withdrew the vakalatnama, to weigh the reason for absence during release on bail, and to act sympathetically, though successive jumping of bail is not to be ignored. Notice upon opposite party no. 2 was deemed unnecessary as the matter pertains to bail-jumping; application disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42389 of 2025

Mukesh Tiwari Alias Dev Kumar

		..	...Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Adarsh Kumar Shukla	Shukla,	Sunil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 81

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Heard Sri Adarsh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant was continuing with the trial. In the month of April, he suffered jaundice due to which, he could not appear before the Court. For the reasons best known to the counsel of the accused, the exemption application on behalf of accused-applicant, has not been sent by the counsel, which led to the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The non-appearance of accusedapplicant before the trial court, was not deliberate or intention but, due to the reason beyond the control of the accused-applicant. Hence, seeks intervention of this Court to quash the order dated 19.04.2025, whereby, processes have been issued passed in S.T. No. 661 of 2019 (State Vs. Mukesh Tiwasri @ Dev Kumar), arising out Case Crime No.1525 of 2018, under Sections 302, 364, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj.

Learned AGA accepts the notice for the State.

There is no point of issuing notice upon opposite party no.2, as the matter pertains to jumping of bail. .

Considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant, the non bailable warrant issued against the accused-

NA528 No. 42389 of 2025

2

applicant is quashed, subject to the conditions that the applicant may appear before the trial court within 30 days. The applicant may not be arrested for 30 days from today during which period the applicant may move appropriate application before the trial court.

Request is made to the trial court to consider that the accused was being represented by a Counsel, who did not appear in the case or moved exemption application, even the vakalatnama has also not been withdrawn. Further to consider the reason for his absence on the date fixed during his release on bail and pass an order sympathetically, but successive jumping of bail is not to be ignored.

The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly disposed of .

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

November 10, 2025 Shivangi

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad