Disposed¶24

Babloo v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2026NA528/396/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.528 BNSS application to quash NBW dated 14.11.2011 (Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, Mathura) in Case Crime No. 185/2006, ss. 452/324/323/504/506 IPC, PS Kosi Kalan, Mathura; applicant in bail since 2008 claiming oral compromise and ignorance of warrants till December 2025; directions to SHO Kosi Kalan, SSP Mathura and Registrar (Compliance)/CJM Mathura for warrant-service and execution reports; listed fresh 11.02.2026; no final decision on quashing.

What did the court decide?

No final relief on the quashing prayer; the Court issued fact-finding directions (service report from SHO, PS Kosi Kalan; inquiry by SSP Mathura; report via Registrar (Compliance) from CJM Mathura) and listed the matter fresh on 11.02.2026. ¶24

Babloo vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 14.11.2011 issuing a non-bailable warrant against the applicant in Case Crime No. 185 of 2006 (PS Kosi Kalan, District Mathura) and all consequential proceedings should be quashed.

¶11

Court's answer

The Station House Officer, Police Station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura is directed to provide the service report of the B.W. and N.B.W. issued against the accused-applicant, furnished through any Sub-Inspector on the next date, 11.02.2026.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura is directed to look into whether the B.W. and N.B.W. issued by the trial court on several dates in Case Crime No. 185 of 2006 have been served on the accused-applicant, and if not, the reason for the lapse in official duty by the concerned police officer(s).

¶22

Key takeaways

The Registrar (Compliance) of the Allahabad High Court is directed to seek a report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura about the execution of the bailable and non-bailable warrants in respect of the applicant.ratio¶23
The case is to be put up on 11.02.2026 as fresh for further hearing; the prayer to quash the N.B.W. was not decided in this order.ratio¶24
Observation that it is astonishing that the applicant presumed an oral compromise meant he need not appear before the trial court, and shocking that despite B.W. and N.B.W. he has been roaming freely, per counsel's submission that service occurred only in December 2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) in an application under Section 528 BNSS by Babloo seeking quashing of the non-bailable warrant dated 14.11.2011 issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, Mathura in Case Crime No. 185 of 2006 (Sections 452, 324, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, PS Kosi Kalan, District Mathura, case No. 1289/ix of 2014). Applicant claimed release on bail in 2008, an oral compromise out of court, and knowledge of the B.W./N.B.W. only in December 2025 while residing at the same address. The Court did not decide the quashing prayer; it directed the SHO, PS Kosi Kalan to furnish the service report of the B.W. and N.B.W. through a Sub-Inspector, the SSP Mathura to inquire into non-service and the lapse by police, and the Registrar (Compliance) to obtain a report from the CJM, Mathura on execution of the warrants; matter listed fresh on 11.02.2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 396 of 2026

Babloo

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Madhukar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 77

¶8

HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed the instant application under Section 528 BNSS with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the application.

¶10

The relief which has been mentioned in the application is delineated below:-

¶11

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned order dated 14.11.2011 thereby issuing the non bailable warrant against the applicant in Case Crime No.185 of 2006 Under Sections 452, 324, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station-Kosi Kalan, District-Mathura pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Devision, Chhata, Mathura, which was registered as case No. 1289/ix of 2014 (State vs. Omi @ Om Prakash and another) and all consequential proceedings thereon in the interest of justice.

¶12

And may also be pleased to stay effect and operation of impugned order dated 14.11.2011 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate Chhata, Mathura during pendency of this criminal misc. application before this Hon'ble Court. And/or to pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the Applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶13

NA528 No. 396 of 2026

¶14

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was released on bail in the year 2008 whereafter he has made oral compromise out of the Court but the applicant had not informed the trial court about the said compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the instant matter bailable warrant (B.W.) was issued on 10.02.2011 which continued upto 10.02.2011 and thereafter, non bailable warrant was issued on 14.11.2011 for the first time which is still continuing. He further submits that though B.W. and N.B.W. have been issued against the applicant on several dates by the concerned trial court but the concerned police has not informed the applicant about the same and that is why, the applicant did not appear before the trial court. He further submits that it is only in December 2025, the applicant came to know about the issuance of B.W. and N.B.W. He further submits that the applicant has not left the village and he is residing at the same address where he was residing in the year 2008.

¶16

Per contra, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned State Law Officer submits that it is not possible that police would not have approached the applicant in pursuance of B.W. or N.B.W. He further submits that this fact can be verified from the concerned police station, for the said purpose he requested for grant of fifteen days' time.

¶17

It is quite astonishing fact in itself that due to oral compromise arrived at between the parties the applicant presumed that he need not to appear before the trial court or even he was required to inform the trial court about the said compromise. It is further shocking to know that despite there being B.W. and N.B.W. issued against the applicant, he has been roaming freely and as per submission of learned counsel for the applicant, the same has been served upon him in December, 2025.

¶18

The Station House Officer, Police Station-Kosi Kalan, DistrictMathura is directed provide service report of B.W. as well as N.B.W. issued against the accused-applicant. The aforesaid information shall be furnished by the concerned S.H.O. through any Sub-Inspector on the next date i.e. 11.02.2026.

¶19

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura is directed to look into

¶20

NA528 No. 396 of 2026

¶21

¶22

the matter as to whether till date the B.W. and N.B.W., which have been issued by the trial court on several dates, has been served upon the accused-applicant of Case Crime No.185 of 2006 Under Sections 452, 324, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station-Kosi Kalan, DistrictMathura or not? And if not, what is the reason behind such lapse in performing official duty by the concerned police officer(s).

¶23

The Registrar (Compliance) of Allahabad High Court is directed to seek report from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura about the execution of bailable and non-bailable warrant in respect of the applicant.

¶24

Put up this case on 11.02.2026 as fresh for further hearing.

¶25

(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)

¶26

January 28, 2026 Manish Himwan

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Babloo v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veena Devi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nirmal Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raghunath Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Avinash Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Chaudhary and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanket Singh vs State of U.P. and Another