Anil Kumar Maheshwari vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7021 of 2026

¶3

Anil Kumar Maheshwari

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepankar Shukla, Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 69

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This case was heard on 25.02.2026. On that date, the Court considered the fact that the case is of the year 2007 and the bail application was filed in the year 2026, despite issuance of non-bailable warrant and process u/S 82 Cr.P.C., and directed the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat to conduct inquiry and explain why non-bailable warrant and process u/S 82 Cr.P.C. have not been executed. Further, this Court directed the personal appearance of the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat on the next date along with such explanation.

¶10

In compliance of the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by this Court, Ms. Shraddha N. Pandey, the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat is personally present before this Court and has filed personal affidavit mentioning therein that on making inquiry from the concerned Court, it has been revealed that neither any non-bailable warrant nor process u/S 82 Cr.P.C. have been actually issued by the concerned Court and that remained only on paper, and for that reason non-bailable warrant and process u/S 82 Cr.P.C. could not be executed. The inquiry report received from the concerned Court is annexed as Annexure-8 of the affidavit. It is further mentioned in the aforesaid affidavit that actually the summons were served

¶11

BAIL No. 7021 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

upon the applicant on 14.07.2009 through one Rajat Maheshwari and service report whereof has also been annexed at page 70 of the affidavit. However, the service report does not show that who is Rajat Maheshwari, who received the summons on behalf of the applicant.

¶14

From perusal of the record, it transpires that the present applicant has filed Application u/s 482 No.31932 of 2024 challenging the charge-sheet dated 02.04.2009, which was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to appear before the court below within three weeks. Thereafter, the applicant has filed an application for anticipatory bail i.e. Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.952 of 2025, which was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to appear before the court below. Thereafter, the applicant surrendered before the court below on 20.01.2026. This fact also shows that the applicant was evading from trial and was not appearing before the court below, despite protection being granted to the applicant by this Court. However, the applicant did not avail the remedy of bail. Even otherwise, the information supplied by the Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division-II, Kanpur Dehat, shows that though the order for issuance of nonbailable warrant and process u/S 82 Cr.P.C. were passed, but actually the non-bailable warrant and process u/S 82 Cr.P.C. could not be sent by the court concerned to the police, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the police were negligent in execution of the non-bailable warrant and process u/S 82 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid fact and negligence on part of the court concerned and its staff, the District Judge, Kanpur Dehat is directed to conduct an inquiry as to why the non-bailable warrant and process u/S 82 Cr.P.C. have not been sent to the police, despite mentioning the same in the order. The report be submitted to this Court through e-mail on or before the next date fixed.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. will also seek instructions from the concerned police regarding Rajat Maheshwari, who has received summons on behalf of the present applicant.

¶17