Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21446 Court No. - 19 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3216 of 2025 Applicant :- Kalluram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 25.10.2016, order dated 20.05.2017 issuing Non-Bailable Warrant and process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and subsequent Non-Bailable Warrant and process under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C. on 03.10.2017 and 04.11.2017. The applicant has also assailed the order of Non-Bailable Warrant issued on 01.10.2022 and on 02.09.2023 in Criminal Case No.222 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.130A of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 336 and 308 I.P.C., P.S. Lambhua, District Sultanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant though argued the matter vehemently, but could not make out a case for quashing of the impugned order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He lastly submits that appropriate direction be issued to the Court below to consider the bail application of the applicant in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922. 5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Apex Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 7. The relief as sought by the applicant is refused. 8. However considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall surrender before the concerned Court below within four weeks from today, and in case he applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be disposed of expeditiously by the Courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). 9. For the period of four weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the concerned Court below, whichever is earlier, he shall not be arrested in the above case. 10. With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 S.Sharma Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench