Ram Ujagir @ Munnu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ram Ujagir @ Munnu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application finally disposed of: quashing relief dismissed as not pressed; if the applicant appears before the court below within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant, the application is to be decided in light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil, Siddharth and Aman Preet Singh; execution of the non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for three weeks or till appearance, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether the non-bailable warrant issued on 15.09.2025 against the applicants was validly issued without prior service of summons and bailable warrant, and what directions should govern the applicants' application for bail/recall of the warrant.

Court's answer

The application under Section 528 BNSS was finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant appears before the court below within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant, his application shall be decided in the light of the observations made in Satender Kumar Antil, Siddharth and Aman Preet Singh.

Ratio / Principle

The relief of quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1825 of 2023 was dismissed as not pressed, since learned counsel for the applicants did not want to press it.

Key takeaways

Execution of the non-bailable warrant against the applicant shall remain in abeyance for three weeks from the date of the order or until the applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1825 of 2023 (N.C.R. No. 31 of 2003, Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Chilhiya, Siddharthnagar) and of the order dated 15.09.2025 issuing a non-bailable warrant: the quashing relief was dismissed as not pressed. The application was finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant appears before the A.C.J.M., Siddharthnagar within three weeks and applies for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant, the application shall be decided in the light of the observations 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 non-bailable warrant was kept in abeyance for three weeks or until the applicant appears, whichever is earlier.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10897 of 2026

Ram Ujagir @ Munnu And 2 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rahul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 74

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1825 of 2023, arising out of N.C.R. No. 31 of 2003, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Chilhiya, District- Siddharthnagar as well as order dated 15.09.2025 whereby non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Siddharthnagar.

Learned counsel for the applicants does not want to press the relief of quashing of entire proceedings.. The aforesaid relief has been dismissed as not pressed.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was on bail at the time of issuing of Non-Bailable Warrant. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without satisfying itself that the summon and other process for attendance has been served. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the position of law. It is settled position of law that N.B.W. should be issued as a last resort after the litigant fails to respond the notices/summons and bailable warrant. It is further submitted that non-bailable warrant has been issued without issuing any summon and bailable warrant.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application.

Considering submissions of learned counsel and perusing record, the instant application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is

NA528 No. 10897 of 2026

2

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 applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

March 19, 2026 Ishan

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad