Allahabad High Court
Mohan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5531 of 2022
Applicant :- Mohan Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Singh,Vivek Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the non-bailable warrant dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.2, District Sultanpur as well as charge sheet dated 31.08.2008 arising out of Sessions Trial No.2 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.844 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kudwar, District Sultanpur.
In view of the order which is proposed to be passed today, notice to opposite party No.3 is hereby dispensed with.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was enlarged on bail by the learned trial court. The applicant never misused the liberty granted to him by the learned trial court. However, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the applicant could not appear as he had no knowledge of the proceeding. Thereafter, due to his absence, the impugned non-bailable warrant dated 25.05.2022 has been issued against the applicant.
His further submission is that the process of non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant is in contravention of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 9 SCC 791 and in Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the process of non-bailable warrant has been issued due to his absence and non-cooperation of the applicant. Therefore, no interference for the same is warranted by this Court.
It is relevant to extract Category A as mentioned in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in MANU/ SC/ 1024/ 2021 which is quoted herein below :
"After filing of charge sheet/complaint taking of cognizance.
a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.
b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.
c) NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.
d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.
e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided."
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of this case, the instant application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to appear before the learned trial court and to move an application for bail/ cancellation of the impugned non-bailable warranted dated 25.05.2022 within two weeks from today.
However, it is needless to mention here that in the eventuality of filing of any such application by the applicant, the learned court shall dispose of such application on its own merits keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin' case (supra), Inder Mohan Goswami's case (surpa) and in Satender Kumar Antill's case (supra).
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
Order Date :- 23.8.2022
cks/-
