Sachin Verma @ Sachin Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sachin Verma @ Sachin Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conditional disposal: execution of the non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for three weeks or until the applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier; on appearance within three weeks, the applicant may apply for bail/recall of the NBW, to be decided by the court below in the light of the Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil, Siddharth and Aman Preet Singh.

Issue for consideration

Whether the application to quash the order issuing the non-bailable warrant against the applicant should be disposed of so as to allow the applicant to appear before the trial court and seek bail/recall of the NBW. +1 more

Court's answer

The application 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 by the court below in the light of the observations made in the Supreme Court judgments cited (Satender Kumar Antil; Siddharth; Aman Preet Singh).

Ratio / Principle

The court disposed of the application with a direction that the applicant appear before the court below within three weeks from the date of the judgment.

Key takeaways

For a period of three weeks from the date of the judgment, or until the applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier, execution of the non-bailable warrant against the applicant is kept in abeyance.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), December 16, 2025 — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 44076 of 2025 by Sachin Verma @ Sachin Singh sought quashing of the order dated 06.10.2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya (Case No. 1701 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2022, under Sections 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya) issuing a non-bailable warrant against him. Applicant contended he was on bail when the NBW issued, and that it issued without prior summons/bailable warrant, contrary to the settled position that NBWs are a last resort; the A.G.A. and opposite party no. 2 opposed. This court did not adjudicate the NBW-issuance contention itself. It finally disposed of the application with directions: if the applicant appears before the court below within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the NBW, the application shall be decided in the light of the Supreme Court judgments — Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021) 10 SCC 773; Siddharth v. State of U.P. 2022 (11) SCC 676; Aman Preet Singh v. CBI 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 — and, meanwhile, execution of the NBW is kept in abeyance for three weeks or until his appearance, whichever is earlier.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 44076 of 2025

Sachin Verma @ Sachin Singh

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mukesh Kumar Kumar Sharma	Pandey,	Praveen
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 75

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pushp Raj Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya in Case No. 1701 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2022, under Sections 504, 506 of IPC, P.S. Achhalda, District Auraiya, whereby NBW has been issued against the applicant.

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 case applicant appears before the court below within three weeks from today

NA528 No. 44076 of 2025

2

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.

December 16, 2025

MAA/-

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

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