Allahabad High Court

ARUN CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the trial court's order issuing a non‑bailable warrant is upheld.

Summary

The appellant, Arun Chauhan, appealed against the order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) that issued a non‑bailable warrant after he failed to appear in the trial for nine years. He claimed that a prior criminal miscellaneous writ petition dated 28‑09‑2016 had protected him from arrest and that he was unaware of any pending proceedings. The court noted that the protective order was limited to arrest only until the police submitted a report under Section 173(2) CrPC and required his cooperation, which he did not provide. Consequently, the trial court correctly exercised its power to issue a non‑bailable warrant under the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant to move a bail application within two weeks. The order also warned that failure to appear would invite further coercive measures.

Issues considered

Whether the non‑bailable warrant issued by the trial court was valid despite the earlier order protecting the appellant from arrest.
Whether the appellant's failure to appear for nine years justifies the issuance of a non‑bailable warrant under the CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173, 82, 83
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 302, 307, 323, 336, 34, 504, 506
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(10), 3(2)(v)

Subjects

non-bailable warrant
bail
SC/ST Act
CrPC
failure to appear
appeal dismissed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9655 of 2026

Arun Chauhan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhay Pratap Singh, Anoop Singh,
Indrajeet Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Prasad Mishra, Ashutosh
Tripathi, G.A.

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Aditya Prasad Mishra,
learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a
prayer to set aside the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), Meerut in Special Session Trial No.25 of 2019 (State vs.
Arun Chauhan), arising out of Case Crime No.560 of 2016, under
Sections 147, 323, 34, 336, 504, 506, 307 and 302 IPC and Section
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Medical College, District- Meerut.

3. In the present matter, the First Information Report was registered as
Case Crime No. 560 of 2016 under Sections 147, 323, 336, 504 and 506
IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. During the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against
the accused-appellant and other co-accused under Sections 147, 323, 34,
336, 504, 506, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the accused-appellant
preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21156 of 2016, which was
disposed of vide order dated 28.09.2016. The relevant portion of the said
order is extracted below:

“However, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
CRLA No. 9655 of 2026
2

the parties and nature of the allegations, it is directed that the petitioner
shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the submission of the
police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but he shall co-operate with
the investigation of the case.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his father became unwell
due to certain reasons and, on account thereof, he could not appear before
the trial court and participate in the proceedings. It is further submitted
that the appellant was under the misconception that the proceedings
against him had already been finally disposed of vide order dated
28.09.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21156 of 2016.

6. Admittedly, cognizance in the present case was taken in the year 2016,
whereafter, on account of the non-cooperation and non-participation of
the accused-appellant in the proceedings, non-bailable warrant was issued
against him. Thereafter, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.
were initiated against the appellant. Although, no specific reason for
initiating such proceedings has been mentioned in the order-sheet placed
on record along with the appeal and perusal of the order-sheet reveals that
summons service pulinda had already been placed on record by the
concerned authority, whereafter the non-bailable warrant was issued
against the appellant. It is also evident that the appellant was specifically
aware of the conditional order passed by this Court on 28.09.2016 in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21156 of 2016, whereby he was granted
protection from arrest only till submission of the police report under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to his cooperation with the investigation.
Despite having knowledge of the said order, the appellant failed to appear
before the trial court and participate in the proceedings for about nine
years.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned
trial court issuing non-bailable warrant against the accused-appellant.

8. Since, the appellant has not been enlarged on bail till date, as submitted
by learned counsel for the appellant, he is directed to appear before the
court concerned and move bail application, within within two weeks from
CRLA No. 9655 of 2026
3

today. It is made clear that no application seeking extension of the
aforesaid period shall be entertained by this court.

9. In case, the appellant moves bail application before the court
concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court
expeditiously and preferably on the same day, in light of principles laid
down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court regarding surrender and
bail.

10. In case, the appellant fails to appear before the court concerned within
the stipulated period, the trial court will be at liberty to adopt appropriate
coercive proceedings including NBW, in accordance with law, for
securing his presence.

11. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

12. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge,
Meerut within 48 hours.

(Santosh Rai,J.)
September 23, 2026
Ankit.

Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…