Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 176555 (ALL)

VINOD KASHYAP v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

A482/9549/2025 · 2025-11-13

Brij Raj Singh

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9549 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 2. This application has been filed with the following main reliefs: "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned Non Bailable Warrant (N.B.W.)/82/83 Cr.P.C. order dated 13.8.2024 as well as its consequential orders passed/issued by the Special Judge ATS/Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2018 "Vinod Kumar Kashyap Versus Pankaj Kumar" contained in Annexure No.1 to the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned Non Bailable Warrant (N.B.W.)/82/83 Cr.P.C. order dated 13.8.2024 as well as its consequential orders passed/issued by the Special Judge ATS/Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2018 "Vinod Kumar Kashyap Versus Pankaj Kumar", in the interest of justice." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant changed the address, therefore, he could not get information regarding pendency of case and non bailable warrant as well as Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. proceedings issued against him. It has been submitted that there is no intention to avoid the proceedings of the case, however, the applicant is ready to cooperate in the proceedings before the trial court. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, the applicant is directed to move an application for recall of the non bailable warrant as well as order of 82/83 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mahesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinod Kashyap .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Cr.P.C. within a period of one week from today and in case such an application is moved, the court concerned is directed to decide the same within a period of four weeks thereafter. For a period of five weeks or till disposal of the said application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 5. It is made clear that the applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments and will cooperate in the proceeding before the trial court and in case he does not cooperate in the trial, the trial court will proceed against him in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application stands disposed of. November 13, 2025 Sachin A482 No. 9549 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench