Rameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conditional relief: within three weeks (or until earlier appearance) the applicant may appear before the court below and apply for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant, such application to be adjudicated in light of the observations in the three cited Supreme Court judgments; meanwhile execution of the non-bailable warrant is kept in abeyance for the same period.

Issue for consideration

Whether the application seeking quashing of the order dated 6.1.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate issuing non-bailable warrants in Criminal Case No. 191 of 1999 should be granted. +1 more

Court's answer

The application is finally disposed of rather than quashed outright or dismissed, accompanied by conditional directions instead of summary acceptance or rejection of the grievance.

Ratio / Principle

Resolution is routed through the applicant's appearance before the court below within three weeks and his applying there for bail or recall of the non-bailable warrant.

Key takeaways

The applicant's application for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth (2022) 11 SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh (2021 SCC OnLine SC 941).ratio¶11
Execution of the non-bailable warrant against the applicant is kept in abeyance for three weeks from the decision or until the applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 4703 of 2025, order date 12.3.2025: Rameshwar Prasad Yadav applied under Section 528 of BNSS to quash the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dated 6.1.2025 issuing non-bailable warrants against him in Criminal Case No. 191 of 1999, pending under Sections 342, 218, 504, 506 and 120B of IPC. Counsel contended the NBW was issued directly without any summon or bailable warrant having issued, without the trial court satisfying itself that summons and other process had been served, and while the applicant was on bail. The learned A.G.A. and counsel for opposite party No. 2 opposed. The court finally disposed of the application (described in the order text as u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) with directions that if the applicant appears before the court below within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the NBW, his application shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court 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 NBW against the applicant was kept in abeyance for three weeks from the order or until the applicant appeared before the court below, whichever was earlier.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36812

Court No. - 75

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4703 of 2025

Applicant :- Rameshwar Prasad Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Priya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Sri Anand Priya Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pushpraj, learned Brief Holder for the State.

The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed to quash the order dated 6.1.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 191 of 1999, under Sections 342, 218, 504, 506 and 120B of IPC, whereby the non-bailable warrants has been issued.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed by the court without satisfying itself that the summon and other process for attendance has been served and without issuing any summon or bailable warrant, direct N.B.W. has been issued. It is further submitted that applicant was on bail at the time of issuing non-bailable warrant.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and law provided in this regard. It is further submitted that order of the non-bailable warrant has been passed on 6.1.2025 without satisfying the service of summons or bailable warrants itself and reason to believe from absconding the process of the court.

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

Considering submissions of learned counsel and perusing record, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 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 the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Akram

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