Disposed¶16

Dileep Kumar Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 May 2026NA528/20350/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS; quashing of non-bailable warrant; NBW dated 04.11.2022 kept in abeyance; Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint; Complaint Case No. 1836 of 2015; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Prayagraj; Police Station Soraon; surrender within three weeks; expeditious disposal of bail application; Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI 2021 SCC Online SC 922; Allahabad High Court; Deepak Verma, J.; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of: principal relief refused; applicant directed to surrender within three weeks; non-bailable warrant dated 04.11.2022 kept in abeyance for three weeks or till surrender, whichever is earlier; bail application or recall of NBW to be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and the Satender Kumar Antil guidelines. ¶16

Dileep Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, having given up the challenge to the non-bailable warrant dated 04.11.2022 and the criminal proceedings, should be granted protection to surrender before the court below, with the warrant kept in abeyance, and a direction for expeditious disposal of his bail application.

¶9

Court's answer

The relief as sought by the applicant in the application (quashing of the non-bailable warrant and criminal proceedings, not pressed on merits) is refused.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is directed to surrender before the concerned court below within three weeks; if he applies for bail or recall of the NBW, the bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶15

Key takeaways

For three weeks from the date of the order or till the applicant surrenders before the concerned Court, whichever is earlier, the non-bailable warrant dated 04.11.2022 shall be kept in abeyance.ratio¶16
With the above observations and directions, the application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant dated 04.11.2022 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Prayagraj in Complaint Case No. 1836 of 2015 (Amrendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Dileep Patel) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Counsel for the applicant gave up the quashing challenge and confined the prayer to protection for surrender. The Court refused the main relief but directed the applicant to surrender within three weeks, kept the NBW in abeyance for that period or till surrender (whichever is earlier), and directed that any bail application or recall of the NBW be decided expeditiously in accordance with law and the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20350 of 2026

¶3

Dileep Kumar Patel

¶4

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Rahul, Ravish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 74

¶6

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been filed by the applicant to quash the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Prayagraj in Complaint Case No. 1836 of 2015 (Amrendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Dileep Patel) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad now Prayagraj.

¶9

At the outset learned counsel for the applicant gave up his challenge to the aforesaid Non-bailable warrant dated 04.11.2022 and criminal proceedings against the applicant and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicant to surrender before the concerned court. The learned counsel for the applicant further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application on merits and prayed that a direction may be issued to the concerned courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. submits that in case the applicant is not pressing the relief as sought for by him on merits and wants to surrender before the concerned court below, he has no objection if the Court grants protection to him for a short period.

¶11

In view of the above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant

¶12

NA528 No. 20350 of 2026

¶13

¶14

application is refused.

¶15

However considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned court below within three weeks from today and in case he applies for bail or recall for NBW, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶16

For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned Court, whichever is earlier, non-bailable warrant dated 04.11.2022 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶17

With the above observations and directions, the application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of.

¶18

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶19

May 18, 2026 Meenu Singh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dileep Kumar Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Kumar Patel v. State of U.P. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amresh Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Prakash Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Kumar Shriwastva vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish vs State of U.P. and 3 Others