Allahabad High Court
SAURABH VAGIYALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The application for quashing the non‑bailable warrant is not maintainable and is therefore refused.
Summary
The applicant, Saurabh Vagiyal, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash a non‑bailable warrant dated 18 September 2024 issued by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C‑I, Bareilly in a case under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act. He alleged that no offence was disclosed against him and that the prosecution was instituted with malicious intent to harass him, supporting his claim with certain documents and statements. The High Court examined the materials and observed that the dispute centered on factual issues and the assessment of evidence, which are not suitable for a quash‑petition at this stage. Consequently, the court refused the prayer to quash the warrant, directing that if the applicant applies for bail within fifteen days, the matter will be decided by the concerned court in accordance with the Supreme Court guidelines in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI. The court also ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicant during the fifteen‑day period.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of entertaining an application for quashing a non‑bailable warrant under Section 528 when the matter involves factual disputes and evidence appraisal?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- non‑bailable warrant
- quashing of warrant
- Section 528
- malicious prosecution
- bail
- Supreme Court guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41826 of 2026
Saurabh Vagiyal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh, Satish Chandra Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 of non bailable warrant order dated 18.09.2024 passed by
learned Additional District Judge/ F.T.C.-I, Bareilly in Case No. 30 of 2020,
State Vs. Saurabh Vagiyal, arising out of Case Crime No. 218 of 2019,
under Sections 8, 21 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station G.R.P. Bareilly
Junction, District Bareilly.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence
against the applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
5. The present application stands disposed of with the direction that in case
applicant appears before the court concerned and applies for bail within 15
days from today, the same shall be decided by the court concerned in
accordance with law in view of the guidelines of Apex Court in the case of
NA528 No. 41826 of 2026
2
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another(Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on
07.10.2021).
6. For a period of aforesaid period of 15 days no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicant.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 30, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…