Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
Brijbhan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 34464 of 2024
Decided On : 06-11-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of non-bailable warrant - Application filed to quash the order dated 22.07.2024 issued by Judicial Magistrate, FTC (S.D.) Azamgarh - Non-bailable warrant issued without ensuring service of summons - Court directed that if the applicant appears within three weeks and applies for bail, the application shall be decided in light of Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 2, 6, 7)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court must ensure that due process is followed before issuing non-bailable warrants, including the service of summons. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to quash a non-bailable warrant issued without confirming service of summons or bailable warrants. The applicant argued that the order was passed without considering relevant facts and circumstances.
Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the application with a direction for the applicant to appear before the lower court and apply for bail, with the execution of the warrant kept in abeyance for three weeks.
Issues: Whether the non-bailable warrant was issued in accordance with due process and whether the applicant was given a fair opportunity to respond.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of following due process before issuing non-bailable warrants, referencing established Supreme Court judgments to guide the lower court's decision-making.
Result: Application disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
1. Sri R.A. Ram, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Somya Madhyan, learned brief holder for the State are present.
2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, FTC (S.D.) Azamgarh in Case No. 1246 of 2005 (State v. Jagdish and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 151 of 2005, under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Raunapar, District Azamgarh, whereby non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed by the court without satisfying itself that the summon and other process for attendance has been served and without issuing any summon or bailable warrant, direct N.B.W. has been issued.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and law provided in this regard. It is further submitted that order of the non- bailable warrant has been passed on 22.07.2024 without satisfying the service of summons or bailable warrants itself and reason to believe from absconding the process of the court.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have opposed the application.
6. Considering submissions of learned counsel and perusing record, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of with a direction that in case applicant appears before the court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail/recall of non bailable warrant, his application shall be decided in the light of the 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. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2022 (11) SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director, 2021 SCC Online SC 941.
7. For a period of three weeks from today or till applicant appears before the court below, whichever is earlier, execution of non bailable warrant against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.
Non-bailable warrants must be issued following due process, ensuring service of summons and consideration of relevant facts.
Before issuing Non-Bailable Warrant due care and precaution is warranted for Trial Court and Non-Bailable Warrant should not be issued in a cursory manner.
Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants requires specific justifications and must not occur routinely; individual liberty should be prioritized unless necessitated by compelling circumstances.
Non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely and must be justified with specific reasons, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public interest.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and must be supported by specific reasons to protect individual liberties under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The court emphasized the necessity of scrutinizing warrants and orders for proclamation, highlighting due process and lawful procedure must be followed.
Warrants either bailable or non- bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which e....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
