MOHAMMAD IKLAK v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER
A482/8483/2025 · 2025-09-26
Shree Prakash Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 141537 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 141537 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8483 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant application has been filed primarily to quash the impugned order dated 16/09/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-1, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 83/2015 (arising from Case Crime No. 319/2014, State Vs. Nisar Ahmed & Ors. under Sections- 147,148,149,307 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh), whereby a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against the Petitioner. Furthermore, the application includes an ancillary prayer to direct the lower court to allow the recall application moved by the Petitioner on personal bonds—without remanding him to judicial custody—in the interest of justice and specifically in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr. (CRMABA No. 7598 of 2021). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant due to unavoidable circumstances, the applicant could not appear before the trial court and he undertakes that he will appear on each and every date fixed in future. The learned counsel for the State has refuted the aforesaid contention. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, particularly, the undertaking of the applicant that he will appear on each and every date, the Non- bailable warrant is hereby kept in abeyance. The applicant is directed to appear before the trial court on the next date fixed and he will keep on appearing on each and every date fixed by the trial court and will not remain absent without an application written in writing with a cogent reason, failing which the trial court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, the present application is disposed of. September 26, 2025 Haseen U. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anamika Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Mohammad Iklak .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench