Allahabad High Court
MUNISHWAR SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The application for quashing the non‑bailable warrant is refused.
Summary
The applicants, Munishwar Singh and another, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a non‑bailable warrant dated 30‑09‑2025 issued by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)‑II, Bareilly in a criminal complaint under IPC sections 420 and 506. They alleged that the prosecution was malicious and that no offence was disclosed against them. The High Court examined the materials and held that the request to quash the warrant involved factual disputes and an assessment of evidence, which could not be decided at this stage. Consequently, the court refused the prayer to quash the warrant but directed that the warrant be kept in abeyance for twenty days, allowing the applicants to surrender and apply for bail. The application was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑bailable warrant issued in the case can be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS.
- Whether the allegations of malicious prosecution and lack of disclosed offence warrant dismissal of the warrant.
- Whether the court can entertain a bail application at this stage.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 506
Subjects
- quash
- non‑bailable warrant
- bail
- Section 528
- IPC 420
- IPC 506
- Allahabad High Court
- malicious prosecution
- factual dispute
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12471 of 2026
Munishwar Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been
filed praying for quashing non bailable warrant order dated
30.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division)-IInd, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 56 of 2025
(Lajpat Rai Vs. Munishwar Singh and others), under Sections
420, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Premnagar, District Bareilly.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that
no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present
prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for
the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain
documents and statements in support of his contention.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and
perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to
be a fit case praying for quashing of impugned order. The
prayer praying for quashing of same is hereby refused, at this
stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the
applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
5. However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and
attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been
brought on record, it is directed that if the applicants appear
and surrender before the court below within twenty days from
today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be
considered and decided in accordance with law.
6. For a period of aforesaid twenty days from today, the non-
NA528 No. 12471 of 2026
2
bailable warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in
abeyance.
7. The present application stands disposed of.
April 20, 2026
Mustaqeem.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…