Disposed¶18

Balraj Singh @ Raju Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Apr 2026CRLA/1163/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

non-bailable warrant; interlocutory order; maintainability of criminal appeal; section 14A(1) SC/ST Act; disposal of appeal at admission stage; fresh bail application; warrant in abeyance; S.T. No. 559 of 2009; Case Crime No. 67 of 2001; Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli; CRLA 1163 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of at the admission stage; appellants granted liberty to appear before the trial court within one month and move a fresh bail application, to be considered in accordance with law in view of their earlier bail; non-bailable warrant to remain in abeyance for one month or till their appearance, whichever is earlier. ¶18

Balraj Singh @ Raju Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal under section 14A(1) SC/ST Act is maintainable against the trial court's order issuing a non-bailable warrant, which the A.G.A. contends is purely interlocutory in nature. +1 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

No useful purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending; the appeal is disposed of at the admission stage with liberty to the appellants to appear before the trial court within a month and move a fresh bail application.

¶18

Key takeaways

If such a bail application is moved, the trial court shall consider it in accordance with law, keeping in view the fact that the appellants were already on bail.ratio¶18
For a period of one month or till the appearance of the appellants before the court for moving an application for bail, whichever is earlier, the non-bailable warrant issued against them shall remain in abeyance.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Appeal No. 1163 of 2026 — Balraj Singh @ Raju Singh and another v. State of U.P. — decided April 28, 2026 by Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. — Appeal against the order dated 06.04.2026 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Raebareli in S.T. No. 559 of 2009 (arising out of Case Crime No. 67 of 2001, Sections 323, 504, 506 and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, Police Station Mohanganj) whereby a non-bailable warrant was issued against the appellants — Learned A.G.A. objected that the appeal under section 14A(1) SC/ST Act was not maintainable as the impugned order was purely interlocutory — Court disposed of the appeal at the admission stage, granting the appellants liberty to appear before the trial court within one month and move a fresh bail application, to be considered in accordance with law in view of their earlier enlargement on bail (orders dated 04/05/2021 and 02/07/2021, not cancelled) — Non-bailable warrant to remain in abeyance for one month or until such appearance, whichever is earlier.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1163 of 2026

¶3

Balraj Singh @ Raju Singh And Another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Another	Lko. And .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Shailendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act , District Raebareli in S.T. No. 559 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 67 of 2001 under Sections 323,504,506 and Section 3(1) (x) SC/ST Act , Police Station Mohanganj District Raebareli to the extent it relates to the appellants.

¶11

At the outset, the learned A.G.A. raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the present appeal under section 14A (1) of the SC/ST Act and submits that the order passed by the learned trial court, whereby a non-bailable warrant has been issued against the appellant, is purely interlocutory in nature and cannot be assailed in a criminal appeal before this court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that a direction may kindly be issued by this court to the trial court for cancellation of the warrant issued against the appellants or taking them fresh bail bond so that they could effectively participate in the trial.

¶13

He submitted that the appellants were enlarged on bail on the merits, the orders dated 04/05/2021, and 02/07/2021 passed by the learned court

¶14

CRLA No. 1163 of 2026

¶15

¶16

below and the said orders has not been cancelled by the competent court.

¶17

The learned A.G.A. has no objection towards the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶18

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this appeal pending and the appeal stands disposed of at the admission stage with the liberty to the appellants to appear before the trial court within a month from today and move a fresh bail application before the trial court . If such an application is moved , the same shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law, keeping in view the fact that they were already on bail, as stated above.

¶19

For a period of one month or till the appearance of the appellants before the court for moving an application for bail, whichever is earlier, the nonbailable warrant issued against them shall remain in abeyance.

¶20

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶21

April 28, 2026 dk/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Balraj Singh @ Raju Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balraj Singh @ Raju Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Najimi Begum vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Dali Rani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Amit Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Reshma Khatoon vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Law and Justice Lko. and Another

Surendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others