HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36526 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. The instant application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Criminal Case No.72032 of 2024 (State Versus Vivek Yadav and another) arising out of Case Crime No.113 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 and 325 I.P.C., Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi. 2. Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel appears for the applicants and submits that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the accused-applicants. He has drawn attention of this Court towards interim order passed on 26.07.2024 by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) No.7018 of 2024 (Vivek Yadav and another Versus State of U.P. and another). After the interim order, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken on 08.11.2024. By the order dated 14.07.2025, the anticipatory bail application detailed above has been rejected by another coordinate Bench on merits. Accordingly, the interim order also stood vacated. The applicants have moved application before the Trial Court for cancellation of non-bailable warrant and granting of leave to file personal bonds. The prayer made in the application dated 06.09.2025 is reiterated underneath; Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nikhil Kumar, Vagish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amrendra Kumar Mishra, G.A. Vivek Yadav And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) "अतः महोदय से प्राथर्ना है िक न्यायिहत में प्राथीर्गण का प्राथर्ना पत्र स्वीकार करते हुए प्राथीर्गण के िवरुद्ध जारी एन०बी०डब्ल्यू० वापस लेते हुए प्राथीर्गण को व्यिक्तगत बंधपत्र पर ज़मानत देने की कृ पा करें। " 3. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur. Hence, the applicants seek interference. 4. Sri Kumar has submitted that the Court concerned has not followed the direction of Supreme Court as well as the High Court in right perspective. He has relied on paragraph 38 of judgement passed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.08.2025 in an Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. No. 6400 of 2025 (Smt. Bacchi Devi Versus State of U.P. and another) on the point that there is no requirement of moving bail application, if the accused is not arrested during investigation. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: "38. Based on the foregoing deliberations, and to give effect to the constitutional guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in exercise of the powers vested in it under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS, and to secure the ends of justice as well as to implement the directions issued in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), hereby directs as follows: (i) All District Judges shall ensure that, in cases where the charge-sheet has been filed without arrest- whether because custodial interrogation was not effected during investigation by Investigating Officer, or the accused had secured anticipatory bail/protective orders under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 528 of the BNSS and duly cooperated during investigation- the trial court shall not remand the accused to judicial custody upon appearance pursuant to summons, nor insist upon filing of regular or anticipatory bail applications. The accused shall be permitted to appear and furnish a personal bond at the first instance, in terms of NA528 No. 36526 of 2025 2 Musheer Alam (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra). The requirement of surety under Section 91 BNSS may be considered subsequently at the court's discretion to ensure appearance of the accused. (ii). At the stage of proceedings under Sections 88, 170, 204, and 209 Cr.P.C. (corresponding sections 91, 190, 227 and 232 of BNSS), the trial court- whether presided over by a District Judge, Additional District and Sessions Judge, or Magistrate- shall inform the accused of his right to furnish a personal bond at the first instance, and may require surety subsequently, if necessary. (iii). Immediately after appearance of accused in response to summons, the court shall comply with Sections 230 and 231 of BNSS, 2023, committing the case to the court of session when exclusively triable by it, and proceed to the next trial stage without unnecessary delay. (iv). For the sake of clarity, when the trial court encounters such anticipatory bail or protective orders under Article 226 or Section 528 BNSS specifying protection till the filing of the charge-sheet, or direct that "no coercive action"/"stay on arrest shall operate until filing of charge sheet", these protections shall be deemed to continue until the conclusion of trial, in line with Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), Sushila Aggarwal (supra), Sidharth (supra), Satender Kumar Antil (supra), and Musheer Alam (supra) unless supported by with cogent reasons, making out an exceptional case. This direction aligns with the consistent position adopted by the Supreme Court, beginning with Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), affirmed in Sushila Aggarwal (supra), clarified in Sidharth (supra), and reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and Musheer Alam (supra). A reference may be invited to paragraphs 43, 44, 46 and 47 of the order dated 11.7.2022; paragraph no.3 of order dated 7.10.2021; paragraph no.6 of order dated 16.12.2021; NA528 No. 36526 of 2025 3 paragraph no.4, 5 and 6 of order dated 21.3.2023; paragraph nos.7(ii) of order dated 2.5.2023; paragraph nos.229 to 239 of the order dated 13.2.2024; paragraph nos.79 to 85 of the order dated 6.8.2024 passed in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, [all the orders mentioned hereinabove have been passed by Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021]. ..........." 5. Learned counsel further relied on the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Musheer Alam Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and another in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 18081 of 2024 decided on 17.01.2025 and drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph-8. The same is reproduced below: "The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge- sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense." 6. Learned A.G.A. is present for the State and submitted that the accused applicants are absconding, their anticipatory bail has been rejected by the High Court and Sessions Court. They did not appear before the Magistrate for getting the case committed to sessions, hence the judgements relied on by the learned counsel are not applicable. 7. There is no point in issuance of notice to opposite party no.2. 8. Taken into consideration the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. The F.I.R. has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against three accused Vivek Yadav, Vishal Yadav and Prince Yadav about the incident of 19th June, 2024, wherein the accused-applicants have allegedly beaten the son of the informant with pipe rinch, iron rod and brick. The F.I.R. is registered for the offence punishable NA528 No. 36526 of 2025 4 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 307 I.P.C. Injury report annexed is at page no.68 of the application reveals 12 injuries on the person of the injured, Sujit Kumar Singh. The charge-sheet is submitted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 and 325 I.P.C. 10. The applicants got an interim anticipatory bail by order dated 26.07.2024 of this Court, later on, same was rejected on merits by order dated 14.07.2025. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced below: "7. The interim order granted by this Court goes to show that the applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail subject to the conditions contained in that order and one of the condition was that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required. Counsel for the applicants has failed to show that applicants are complying the order of this Court. There is no material to show that the applicants are appearing regularly before the trial court. This shows that the applicants are not complying with the terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicants. Furthermore, perusal of the record also shows that there is specific allegations against the applicants. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, has held that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration." 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any good NA528 No. 36526 of 2025 5 ground for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 11. However, it is open for the applicants to move regular bail before the concerned Court below." 11. After rejection of anticipatory bail by this Court, the applicants filed another anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which was also rejected on 28.07.2025. 12. Record shows that summons have been issued to applicants by order dated 08.11.2024 of the C.J.M., while they were on interim anticipatory bail. Order dated 25.02.2025 shows that summons were served on applicants but they did not appear, which led to the issuance of bailable warrants, which were also served on the applicants as shown in the order dated 19.03.2025. This reflects the conduct of the accused-applicants. The C.J.M. then constraint to issue non-bailable warrants against the applicants. It is thereafter that the applicants had moved application on 03.04.2025 for recall of non-bailable warrants and leave to file personal bonds, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 13. The incharge C.J.M. has rejected the application on two counts. First, that the High Court while rejecting anticipatory bail application has directed the accused-applicants to move regular bail before the court concerned. Second, that the case of the applicants falls in category 'B' in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, as the offence is punishable for life. 14. It cannot be overlooked that order dated 14.07.2025 of the High Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No.7018 of 2024, is final. The Trial Court concerned has to abide by the direction in particular case. Further, conduct of the accused as is reflected from record is pointing to only one inference that they are misusing the process of the Court. 15. In paragraph 38 (iv) of Bacchi Devi (supra), it is made clear NA528 No. 36526 of 2025 6 that the general principles are not applicable in exceptional cases. Even the case of Musheer Alam (supra) is not applicable in the present case as it merely deals with sending of the accused to jail after submission of charge-sheet, which is not the present case. 16. By way of impugned order, the Court has merely issued non- bailable warrants due to non-appearance of the accused- applicants before the Court. Moreover, after rejection of anticipatory bail application by coordinate Bench of this Court, no further bail application has been moved by the accused- applicants despite direction. This Court does not find merit in this application, which deserves to be dismissed, as the conduct of the accused-applicants evinces misuse of the process of law. 17. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is, accordingly dismissed. 18. Before parting with, it would be expedient to reiterate the principles of law enumerated in the cases of Siddharth Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. reported in (2022) 13 SCC 764, which deals with requirement of arrest of the accused, who have not been arrested during investigation. The court concerned is requested to consider the application for bail and interim bail, if filed, in the same perspective without being biased from observation made by this Court while deciding present application. September 22, 2025 MN/- NA528 No. 36526 of 2025 7 (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad