Allahabad High Court
RAVI KULSHRESTHA @ RAVI KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The prayer for quashing the non‑bailable warrant is dismissed as not pressed, and the Court conditionally directs the applicants to appear and file a bail application by a specified date.
Summary
The applicants – Ravi Kulshrestha, Rohit Kumar Sharma and Mayank Sikarwar – filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash a non‑bailable warrant issued by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) in Agra. During the hearing, counsel for the applicants withdrew the prayer to quash the warrant, stating that they only required permission to appear before the trial court within two weeks to file a regular bail application. The State’s counsel raised no objection to this amendment. The Court dismissed the quash‑warrant prayer as not pressed and, considering the circumstances, directed that the applicants must appear and file a bail application by 14 October 2026, failing which the trial court may proceed against them. The application was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition when the applicant withdraws the prayer to quash a non‑bailable warrant?
- Can the High Court conditionally direct a time‑bound appearance for filing a bail application in lieu of quashing the warrant?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 127(2), 351(2), 528, 75
- Information Technology Act — s. 66E
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)B(1)
Subjects
- bail
- non-bailable warrant
- Section 528
- quash of proceedings
- high court
- application dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 41979 of 2026
Ravi Kulshrestha @ Ravi Kumar And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shivani Kulshrestha, Vishnu Murti
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 76
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Vishnu Murti Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and
Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the
applicants- Ravi Kulshrestha @ Ravi Kumar, Rohit Kumar Sharma and
Mayank Sikarwar, with the prayer to allow the present application and
quash the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 05.08.2026 passed by Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), Agra in S.T. No. 513 of 2026 (State Vs. Ravi Kulshrestha and
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2025, under Sections 75,
127(2), 351(2) B.N.S., Section 66E I.T. Act and Section 3(1)B(1) SC/ST
Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Agra.
4. After arguments on merits at length, learned counsel for the applicants
states that he does not want to press the prayer for quashing of the
proceedings and the impugned summoning order. He states that the purpose
of the applicants would be served if they are permitted to appear before the
trial court within a period of two weeks from today and file a regular bail
application.
5. Learned counsel for the State has no objection of aforesaid arguments of
learned counsel for the applicants.
6. In view of the above, the prayer for quashing of proceedings/summoning
order is dismissed as not pressed.
NA528 No. 41979 of 2026
2
7. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
looking to the limited prayer of learned counsel for the applicants it is
directed that if the accused-applicants appear and apply for bail before the
court concerned by 14th October 2026 or earlier, the same shall be
considered and decided in accordance with law.
8. Further if the applicants fail to appear by 14th October 2026 or before the
court concerned to file a bail application, the trial court shall proceed against
them in accordance with law.
9. The present application is disposed of.
September 30, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…