Disposed

Somendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2025NA528/4761/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of an application to quash the issuance of a non-bailable warrant. The Court directed suspension of execution for three weeks or until appearance, pending bail application to be decided with guidance from Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Execution of non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for three weeks or until applicant appears; bail application to be decided subsequently.

Somendra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53256

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4761 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Somendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Narayan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed to quash the order dated 3.6.2019 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, in Criminal Case No. 2989 of 2007 (State v. Somendra), under Sections 279, 338, 427 and 304A of IPC, PS Kotwali Dehat, whereby the non-bailable warrant has been issued

¶8

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.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned order has been passed against position of law. It is further submitted that it is a settled position of law that nonbailable warrant should be issued as a last resort after the litigants failed to respond to notice, summons and bailable warrants. It is further submitted that order of the non-bailable warrant has been passed on 3.6.2019 without satisfying the service of summons or bailable warrants itself and reason to believe from absconding the process of the court.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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 .

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Akram

¶15

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

Somendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases