SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
Rahis Ahmad and Another - Applicants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 6396 of 2024
Decided On : 10-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Rajendra Prasad, Vinod Singh.
For the Opposite Party : G.A.

IMPORTANT POINT
The issuance of non-bailable warrants without proper service of summons violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

(A) Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 - Sections 4/21 - Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Sections 3/4 - Anticipatory bail application filed by applicants alleging non-service of summons leading to issuance of non-bailable warrants - Court emphasizes the necessity of following due process under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Non-bailable warrants issued without proper service of summons violate the rights of the accused. (Paras 25, 26, 27)

(B) Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Right to life and liberty - The procedure established by law must be followed to prevent arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty - Anticipatory bail serves as a safeguard against arbitrary arrest. (Paras 19, 20, 21)

Facts of the case:

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in a case where non-bailable warrants were issued without proper service of summons, raising concerns about their rights under Article 21.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the issuance of non-bailable warrants without service of summons was not in accordance with the law, violating the applicants' rights.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of non-bailable warrants issued without service of summons and the implications for the applicants' rights under Article 21.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that due process must be followed in issuing warrants, emphasizing that personal liberty cannot be curtailed without adherence to established legal procedures.

Result: Anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram D. Chauhan, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Rahis Ahmad and Mohammad Arif in Case No. 4364 of 2024 in Case Crime No. 78 of 2018 under Sections 4/21 of Mine and Minerals Act and Section 3/4 of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station - Swar, District - Rampur.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant has not been served with the summons although the summoning order was passed on 15.10.2023. On 21.08.2024 this Court has passed the following order:-

    "1. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants Rahis Ahmad and Mohammad Arif in Case Crime No.78 of 2018, under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act and Section 3/4 Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Swar, District Rampur.

    2. In the present case, summoning order was issued on 15.10.2023 by the court concerned. A perusal of the order sheet of the court concerned would demonstrate that the Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued against the applicant.

    3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that summons have not been served on the applicants.

    4. This Court on 9.7.2024 granted time to learned A.G.A. to obtain instructions as to whether the summons were served on the applicants. On 6.8.2024, learned A.G.A. has made a statement that summons were not received in the police station as such the same could not be served.

    5. Today an affidavit of compliance has been filed by learned A.G.A. in this respect.

    6. Paragraph 6 of the compliance affidavit filed today is quoted hereinbelow:-

    "6. That it is relevant to mention here that the Inspector Incharge, Police Station Swar, District Rampur has prepared his report and a perusal of the same goes to show that according to order sheet of the Learned Court Below it appears that on different dates ordered to issue summons and Non Bailable Warrant but the same were not received at the Police Station and lastly on 03.04.2024 a Non Bailable Warrant issued against the applicant no.1 was received at the Police Station and the concerned Sub-Inspector namely Amar Pal has gone to serve the same at the house of aforesaid Rahis Ahmad but he was not present at the house and it transpires that he used to work of Dairy in Haldwani (Uttarakhand) accordingly regarding the issuance of Non Bailable Warrant and information given to him at his mobile No.9837165426. Photocopy of Non Bailable Warrant issued against applicant no.1 Rahis Ahmad in which 03.05.2024 was fix and information regarding the same was given to him on telephone is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-2 to this affidavit."

    7. It is to be seen in the present case that as per the State the summons were not received by the police station from the court concerned and as such the same is not served.

    8. It is not known as to how the court concerned has issued the Non-Bailable Warrant against the applicants without recording a finding with regard to service of summons.

    9. The District Judge, Rampur is hereby directed to submit a report as to why the summons were not issued to police station concerned despite the order being passed by the court concerned for service. In the event, summons were issued then, whether the service was made on the applicants. Any service report was filed by the police shall also be disclosed. In the event, no summons were issued in pursuance to the summoning order of the court concerned, the District Judge, Rampur shall specify reason in the report for non-issuance of the summoning order and the Officer, who have erred in not issuing the summons despite the order of the court concerned summoning the accused.

    10. The report shall be submitted before the next date fixed.

    11. List on 10th September, 2024 in top ten cases.

    12. Interim order granted earl

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top