Allahabad High Court
SHIVCHARANversusSTATE
- Decided
Holding
Bail was granted because the appellants had already been acquitted, and the non‑bailable warrant was issued on account of a procedural error.
Summary
The appellants, Shivcharan and Hazari Lal, were subjected to a non‑bailable warrant after an order dated 13‑02‑2026 directed their production before the Allahabad High Court. They contended that a coordinate bench had already acquitted them in Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of 1987, but the acquittal order was not reflected in the record of the present appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1822 of 1987), leading to the erroneous warrant. Their counsel argued that the administrative lapse should not result in continued detention and that bail was appropriate. The Court examined the earlier acquittal order, the registry’s failure to note it, and the lack of any new ground for detention. Consequently, the bail application was allowed and the appellants were ordered to be released on bail forthwith.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to appellants who have already been acquitted but are subject to a non‑bailable warrant due to a clerical omission.
Subjects
- bail
- non‑bailable warrant
- acquittal
- administrative error
- criminal appeal
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1822 of 1987
Shivcharan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : , Dilip Kumar Goswami
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 48
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.
(Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application dated 17.03.2026)
1. Vide order dated 13.02.2026 passed by this Court, the non-bailable
warrant was issued to the appellants, namely, Shivcharan and Hazari Lal
through Chief Judicial Magistrate/Superintendent of Police concerned with a
direction to produce both the appellants before this Court.
2. In pursuance of the said order, both the appellants, namely, Shivcharan
and Hazari Lal are present before this Court.
3. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants has
placed bail application before this Court, which is taken on record.
4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants
apprised the Court that the present appeal was listed along with Criminal
Appeal No. 1833 of 1987, wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had
allowed both the appeals vide order dated 16.11.1987. However, due to
mistake, the said order was neither reflected nor placed on record in
Criminal Appeal No. 1822 of 1987. It was further submitted that the
appellants had already been acquitted by this Court in the year 1987 itself,
but owing to the absence of the said order on record of Criminal Appeal No.
1822 of 1987, non-bailable warrants were issued against the appellants on
account of non-presence of counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants further submitted that in
CRLA No. 1822 of 1987
2
pursuance of the non-bailable warrant order, both the appellants were
arrested and produced before this Court. It was further submitted that, in
view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants deserve to be
released on bail, particularly as they had already been acquitted by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.11.1987 passed in both the
appeals.
6. We have perused the order dated 16.11.1987 passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 1833 of 1987, the order-sheet of the present appeal, and the office report
of the Registry of this Court. It is evident that the earlier counsel engaged in
the appeal never apprised this Court of the aforesaid fact on any of the dates
when the appeal was listed. The Registry also failed to place the relevant
information before this Court that the appellants had already been acquitted
by this Court.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, the bail application is allowed.
Accordingly, both the appellants, namely Shivcharan and Hazari Lal be
released on bail forthwith from this Court.
8. Learned AGA is directed to send the order to the Superintendent of
District Jail concerned for compliance forthwith.
9. Registrar (Compliance) is also directed to send the order to the District
Judge concerned for compliance.
(Order on Appeal)
10. The appeal consign on record. The lower court record be remitted back
to the court concerned.
(Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
March 18, 2026
Sanjeet
Digitally signed by :-
SANJEET KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…