Disposed¶10

Chhota Prasad @ Rajesh Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2026CRLA/572/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SC/ST Act Section 14A(1) appeal against non-bailable warrant; bail application directions per Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51; surrender before trial court; no coercive process for one month; Session Trial 423 of 2006; Case Crime 94 of 2003; Sections 352, 504 IPC; 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act; P.S. Gosainganj, Lucknow; Chhota Prasad @ Rajesh Awasthi; PW-1 cross-examination; charges framed 26.02.2007.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with directions: appellant to appear before the learned trial court within one month and move bail application, to be heard and decided per the Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 guidelines; no coercive process against the appellants for one month or until appearance, whichever is earlier; notice to respondent no.2 dispensed with. ¶10

Chhota Prasad @ Rajesh Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether, in this appeal under Section 14A(1) SC/ST Act against the non-bailable warrant, directions should be issued to the trial court regarding consideration of the appellant's bail application, the appellant having sought to surrender.

¶6

Court's answer

The appeal is finally disposed of, notice to respondent no.2 dispensed with, with a direction to the appellant to appear before the learned trial court within a month and move bail application; the bail application shall be heard and decided in terms of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

For a period of one month, or until the appearance of the appellants before the trial court, whichever is earlier, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellants.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. — CRLA No. 572 of 2026, decided 11.03.2026. Criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) SC/ST Act against non-bailable warrant dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Session Trial No. 423 of 2006 (State v. Chhota Prasad), Case Crime No. 94 of 2003, Sections 352, 504 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Gosainganj, District Lucknow. Appellant, previously released on bail and charge-framed on 26.02.2007, had failed to appear; counsel relied on PW-1's cross-examination (no caste-indicative words attributed to appellant; presence uncertain; no inculpatory evidence) and prayed for surrender with directions on bail; AGA noted appellant at large over ten years. HELD: appeal disposed of — appellant to appear before trial court within one month and move bail application, to be decided in terms of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; no coercive process for one month or until appearance, whichever earlier.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 572 of 2026

¶3

Chhota Prasad @ Rajesh Awasthi

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶7

		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Ramesh Gupta	Gupta, Dharmendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 27

¶9

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State respondent no.1 and perused the record.

¶11

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been referred against the order of non-bailable warrant dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Session Trial Number . 423 of 2006, State versus Chhota Prasad), relating to Case Crime Number 94 of 2003, under Sections 352, 504 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, relating to Police Station Gosainganj, District Lucknow.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is accused in the aforesaid case crime, which is pending before the Court under the SC/ST Act, Lucknow, wherein the appellant has been summoned to face trial and charges under aforesaid sections were framed against him on 26.02.2007. It is further submitted that the appellant has already been released on bail in the said case.

¶13

He further submits that the appellant failed to appear under legitimate expectation that in the said crime case, having entered as P.W.1, the informant had not made averments against the appellant in his evidence during the trial.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that a copy of the

¶15

CRLA No. 572 of 2026

¶16

¶17

statement of PW-1, Smt. Milana, has been filed as Annexure No.4 to the affidavit in the present appeal. She has made certain allegations against the appellant in her examination-in-chief before the trial court and in her cross-examination, she has categorically stated that the appellant had not asserted any caste-indicative words against her. She has also stated that there was a large crowd present at the place of occurrence, and she could not state with certainty whether the appellant was present in the crowd or not. In her cross-examination, she has not given any inculpatory evidence against the appellant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that that the appellants seeks to surrender before the court below as non-bailable warrant has been issued by the court below and for that offense is punishable by a maximum period of seven years imprisonment. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that some directions may kindly be issued to the trial court regarding consideration of the bail application of the appellants.

¶19

Learned AGA has submitted that the appellant has been at large for more than ten years.

¶20

In view of the above, the appeal is finally disposed of, after dispensing with the notice to respondent no.2, with a direction to the appellant to appear before the learned trial court within a month from today and move bail application, the same shall be heard and decided in terms of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶21

For a period of one month, or until the appearance of the appellants before the trial court, whichever is earlier, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellants.

¶22

The appeal stands disposed of with the above directions.

¶23

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶24

March 11, 2026

¶25

Preeti

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chhota Prasad @ Rajesh Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhota Prasad @ Rajesh Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lukai Alias Azmat Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Bilal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Lalta Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 6 Others

Janki Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Rampal Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko