HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7141 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the following relief:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying writ petition, duly supported by an affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may, kindly be pleased to pass an order quashing the order dated 03.05.2025 by which a non bailable warrant and the notice dated 14.08.2025 issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C both issued against the petitioner by ACJM (IV) Court No. 20, Sultanpur in case Crime No. 130/2023, PS Baldi Rai, District Sultanpur." 3. In compliance of the order dated 29.08.2025, the applicant - Shiv Kishor is present before this Court and he undertakes that he will cooperate with the investigation proceeding and would appear before the investigating officer as and when required. 4. This Court finds that the proceeding of issuance of non-bailable warrant as well as proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., is for procuring the presence of an accused and the accused has undertaken that he will remain present before the investigating officer and before the trial court, without absent. Thus, to meet the ends of justice, the order impugned is hereby kept in abeyance. 5. The applicant is directed to remain present before the investigating officer on 09.09.2025 at 02:15 P.M. and would cooperate the investigating officer. 6. The benefit of ratio of judgment drawn in the case of Satender Kumar Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anadi Chitranshi, Jay Vardhan Shukla, Pramod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shiv Kishor .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022)10 SCC 51 shall be available to the applicant. 7. It is provided that if the applicant would remain absent before the investigating officer, without any genuine reason, given in writing, the benefit of this order shall not accrue to the applicant and the investigating officer is at liberty to move an application for reopening of the application for hearing. 8. This matter has not been decided on merits. 9. The application is disposed off accordingly. September 2, 2025 Mohd. Sharif A482 No. 7141 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench