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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application finally disposed of: applicants granted three weeks to appear before the court below and apply for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant, such application to be decided in the light of the cited Supreme Court judgments; 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 against the applicants — who, as submitted, were on bail at the time and were not served summons or a bailable warrant — is liable to be quashed

Court's answer

The application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicants appear before the court below within three weeks and apply for bail/recall of the non-bailable warrant, their application shall be decided in the light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth (2022) 11 SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh 2021 SCC Online SC 941

Ratio / Principle

Execution of the non-bailable warrant against the applicants is kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks from the date of the order or till the applicants appear before the court below, whichever is earlier

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) finally disposed of an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Prayagraj in criminal case No. 3281 of 2021 (arising out of case crime No. 51 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Industrial Area, District Prayagraj), whereby a non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicants. Counsel submitted that the applicants were on bail when the NBW issued and that no summons or bailable warrant preceded it. The Court did not decide the legality of the NBW; it directed that if the applicants appear before the court below within three weeks and apply for bail/recall of the NBW, 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, and kept execution of the NBW in abeyance for three weeks or till appearance, whichever is earlier.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8294 of 2026

Dharmendra Singh And Another

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another				.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Prem Yadav	Shankar	Sharma,	Shatrughna
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 74

HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Sri Shatrughna Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri M.K. Singh, learned brief holder for the State are present.

The present application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed to quash the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Prayagraj in criminal case No. 3281 of 2021, arising out of case crime No. 51 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, I.P.C., Police Station Industrial Area, District Prayagraj, whereby Non Bailable Warrant has been issued against the applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were 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 finally disposed of with a direction that in case applicants appear before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail/recall of non bailable warrant, their application shall be decided in the light of the

NA528 No. 8294 of 2026

2

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 applicants appear before the court below, whichever is earlier, execution of non bailable warrant against applicants shall be kept in abeyance.

March 18, 2026 T. Sinha

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

Digitally signed by :- TRIPTI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad