DHANPAT MISHRA @ DHANPAT KUMAR MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
A482/9436/2025 · 2025-11-11
Tej Pratap Tiwari
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 187993 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 187993 (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. - 9436 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. By the instant application, the applicant has prayed to quash the N.B.W dated 03.08.2024 issued by Special Judge (Gangster Act), Faizabad now Ayodhya in Criminal Case No. 350 of 2009 (State Vs. Sanotsh Kumar Singh and others) arising out of crime no. 957 of 2008, under Section 3(1) of U.P.Gangsters Act, 1986, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya (Fzd) against the petitioner. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant went to Punjab to earn his daily bread and due to his absence and also of the learned counsel on the date fixed before the trial court, the trial court issued the N.B.W against the applicant. Applicant's absence on the date fixed was neither deliberate nor intended to ignore the process of Court of law rather it was inadvertent and without any malicious intention. It is also been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that he was on bail, which finds mention at page 52 of the instant petition. 4. Considering submissions of the learned counsel and perusing the record, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of with a direction that in case applicant appears before the court below within four Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinod Kumar Pandey, Pankaj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dhanpat Mishra @ Dhanpat Kumar Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
weeks from today and applies for recall of non bailable warrant, his application shall be shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 2022 (11) SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director 2021 SCC Online SC 941. 5. For a period of four weeks from today or till applicant appear before the court below, whichever is earlier, execution of non bailable warrant against applicant shall be kept in abeyance.
November 11, 2025 P.S A482 No. 9436 of 2025 2 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench