HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3397 of 2025 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This appeal under Section - 495 BNSS has been preferred against order dated 11.12.2024, passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.) Act, Jhansi in Session Case No. 1891 of 2024 (State Vs. Ankit Sauni), under Sections - 394, 411, 427 I.P.C. and Section - 3/5 Explosive Act, Police Station - Sipri Bazar, District - Jhansi. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was surety for accused Ankit Saini in Session Case No. 1891 of 2024 (State Vs. Ankit Sauni), under Sections - 394, 411, 427 I.P.C. and Section - 3/5 Explosive Act, Police Station - Sipri Bazar, District - Jhansi and during trial said accused Ankit Saini has absconded and warrants were issued against him. It was submitted that before issuance of recovery warrants against appellant no proper notice was served upon Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sangram Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) appellant / surety and no specific order has been passed regarding forfeiture of the bail bonds and recovery warrants has been issued against appellant. It was submitted that no proper opportunity was granted to the appellant to file his objections under Section - 446 Cr.P.C. / 491 BNSS before issuance of recovery warrants. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no appropriate procedure has been followed by the Trial court and recovery warrants have been issued in an arbitrary manner. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. Perusal of record shows that appellant has stood surety for accused Ankit Saini in above referred case. It appears that during trial accused Ankit Saini has absconded and thereafter warrants were issued against accused Ankit Saini. Notice was also issued to the appellant / surety. Case of appellant is that no notice was served upon the appellant and that order of forfeiture of bond has been passed and no opportunity has been provided to the appellant to file his objections. 6. Considering facts of the matter and relevant prosions of law, it appears that impugned order dated 11.12.2025 is not in accordance with law. Hence the impugned order, so far it relates to issuance of recovery warrants, is quashed and it is directed that in case appellant submits his objections against notice issued under Section - 446 Cr.P.C. / 491 BNSS before the trial court within a period of three weeks from today, the CRLA No. 3397 of 2025 2 same shall be considered and decided by the Trial court concerned expeditiously in accordance with law. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today and in case objections are filed by the appellants against notice issued under Section - 446 Cr.P.C. / 491 BNSS before the court concerned within the aforesaid period, till disposal of such objections, no coercive actions shall be taken against the appellant. 7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. October 13, 2025 S Rawat CRLA No. 3397 of 2025 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad