Disposed¶15

Prempal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2026NA528/15959/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Prempal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 15959 of 2026, decided May 5, 2026 by Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J. Quashing of non-bailable warrant order dated 06.05.2025 and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 408 of 2018 under Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Moosajhag, District Budaun refused at threshold stage due to factual disputes and appraisal of evidence; NBW kept in abeyance for twenty days; surrender-and-bail direction under Section 528 BNSS.

What did the court decide?

Quashing prayer refused at this stage; non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for twenty days; direction that if the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within twenty days, their bail prayer be considered and decided in accordance with law. ¶15

Prempal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15959 of 2026

¶2

Prempal And Another

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 82

¶6

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed praying for quashing non bailable warrant order dated 06.05.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 408 of 2018 (Brajlal @ Vij Lal Vs. Rajveer @ Nanhelal and others), under Sections 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Moosajhag, District Budaun, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrat5e-I, Budaun.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case praying for quashing of impugned order. The prayer praying for quashing of same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶11

However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within twenty days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶12

NA528 No. 15959 of 2026

¶13

¶14