In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that an accused cannot seek the benefit of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after a non-bailable warrant has been issued. The judgment, delivered by Justice Saurabh Lavania, came in response to an application filed by Navneet Bhadauria under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Court No. 25, Lucknow.
The Court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the benefit of Section 88 CrPC is not available to an accused who fails to appear before the court and attempts to evade the judicial process.
Background of the Case
The case began with an FIR filed by Deepak Sharma (Opposite Party No. 2) against Anand Kumar Singh @ Baba Trikaldarshi, Rajeev Lochan Paliwal, Navneet Bhadauria (the applicant), Vijay Pal Prajapati, and another unknown individual at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow. The FIR, registered as Case Crime No. 363 of 2021, included serious charges under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, and other offenses.
Following the filing of the charge sheet on 01.06.2022, the Court took cognizance of the charges and issued summons to the accused. Navneet Bhadauria, however, did not appear, prompting the issuance of a bailable warrant on 10.10.2022 and subsequently a non-bailable warrant on 15.10.2022 due to his continued absence.
Key Legal Issues and Arguments
1. Application under Section 88 CrPC:
The applicant sought relief under Section 88 CrPC, which allows the court to take a bond for appearance when an accused is present. However, the trial court rejected the application, noting that the benefit of Section 88 could only be availed if the accused voluntarily appears before the court. Since a non-bailable warrant had already been issued due to his non-appearance, the trial court ruled that Section 88 was not applicable in this case.
2. Application under Section 70 CrPC:
The applicant also filed an application under Section 70 CrPC, seeking the recall of the non-bailable warrant issued against him. The trial court denied this request, citing the applicant’s failure to comply with previous court orders and his attempts to delay the trial through repeated exemption applications and non-cooperation.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Saurabh Lavania, while dismissing the application, made critical observations about the applicant’s conduct. The Court held:
“The benefit of Section 88 CrPC cannot be extended to an accused who has failed to appear in person before the court and against whom a non-bailable warrant has already been issued.”
The Court further observed that the conduct of the applicant demonstrated a clear intent to evade judicial proceedings and delay the trial. The applicant had not complied with the court’s previous orders, including the direction to surrender following the cancellation of his anticipatory bail.
The High Court affirmed that for Section 88 CrPC to apply, the accused must voluntarily appear before the court. The Court also highlighted that once a non-bailable warrant is issued, the accused cannot seek the benefit of Section 88 CrPC, as it would undermine the judicial process and allow the accused to avoid the consequences of non-compliance with court orders.
The High Court concluded that there was no merit in the application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings or recall the non-bailable warrant. The Court found no error or impropriety in the trial court’s order dated 21.08.2024, which had rejected the applications under Sections 70 and 88 CrPC.
Case Details:
– Case No.: Application U/S 482 No. 7515 of 2024
– Applicant: Navneet Bhadauria
– Opposite Parties: State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow; Deepak Sharma
– Bench: Justice Saurabh Lavania
– Counsel for Applicant: Anuuj Taandon, Purnendu Chakravarty
– Counsel for Opposite Parties: Shri S.P. Tiwari (A.G.A.), Digvijay Nath Dubey
