Page No.

1 of 42

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

(Lucknow)
********************
A.F.R.

Judgment/order Reserved on: 06.02.2024

Judgment/order Delivered on: 12.03.2024

Reserved

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 465 of 1999

Appellant :- Surednra Prasad Misra and Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Sinha,Anurag Singh Chauhan,
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhinandan Kumar Pandey

********************
Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari, J.

(Per: Rajan Roy, J.)

(Crl. Misc. Application No. 5 of 2023 - Second Bail Application)

1. Heard Mr. Anurag Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for

the appellant no. 2 - Bablu alias Alok Kumar and learned AGA

on the second bail application.

2. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment and

order dated 09.08.1999 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST),

Sultanpur in 97 of 1995 (State vs. Surendra Prasad and

another) arising out of case Crime No. 8 of 1995, under

Section 302 IPC, Police Station Amethi, District Sultanpur

whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to

 Page No. 2 of 42

undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 34

IPC.

3. Appellants - Surendra Prasad Misra and Bablu alias Alok

Kumar were convicted as aforesaid vide judgment of the Court

below dated 09.08.1999, but, were ordered to be enlarged on

bail by this Court vide orders dated 09.07.1999 and

22.05.2000 passed in this appeal. When the matter came up

before the Court on 06.05.2022 none appeared for the

appellants, accordingly Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur

was directed to issue non-bailable warrant against the

appellants and also that they shall be taken into custody and

sent to jail. The said order reads as under:

"The instant application has been filed by the victim of

the present case, who is son of the deceased for early
disposal of the present appeal.
Ms. Smiti Sahai, learned A.G.A. is present.
Learned A.G.A. states that both the appellants are on
bail.
It transpires from the office report dated 1.10.2021 that
both the appellants are alive and to this effect, Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur has sent compliance
report dated 17.9.2021.
None appears on behalf of the appellants to argue the
instant appeal.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur is directed to issue
Non-bailable Warrants against the appellants nos.1 and
 Page No. 3 of 42

2 namely Surendra Prasad Mishra and Bablu @ Alok

Kumar. The appellants shall be taken into custody and
sent to jail. Chief Judicial Magistrate shall submit his
report before this court on or before 4.7.2022.
It further transpires from the order sheet that the office
was directed to prepare the paper book but the same has
not yet been prepared.
Office is directed to prepare the paper book by the next
date.
List this appeal for final hearing on 4.7.2022.
Since the appeal is listed for final hearing on 4.7.2022,
as such the instant application bearing Crl. Misc.
Application No.IA/2/ 2022 stands disposed."
In pursuance thereof both the appellants were arrested

and are in jail. Appellants were arrested on 25.06.2022, as

informed by the counsel for the appellant no. 2. Appellants

filed an application bearing No. IA/3/2022 for release on bail

but the same was rejected on 01.08.2022 in the following

terms:

"This is the first bail application moved on behalf of the

appellants.
It transpires from the record that the appellants were on
bail and this Court vide order dated 06.05.2022 issued
non-bailable warrants against the appellants and directed
the matter to be listed today for final hearing. Thereafter,
the appellants were arrested by the police on
25.06.2022.
In pursuance of order dated 06.05.2022, the matter is
listed today for final hearing.
 Page No. 4 of 42

Heard Shri Siddhartha Sinha, Advocate holding brief of

Shri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri
Vishwas Shukla, learned AGA for State-respondent,
Abhinandan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
complainant and perused the material brought on record.
Learned counsel for the appellants stated that he has not
obtained the paper book and further stated the
appellants are in jail since 25.06.2022. He further
submitted that appellants have no criminal history, hence
are entitled to be released on bail.
When the learned counsel for the appellants was asked
to argue the appeal finally, he showed his reluctance and
stated that the instant bail application filed on behalf of
the appellants be heard and decided.
After hearing the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact
that the appeal is listed today for final hearing; paper
book is ready and the appeal is of the year 1999 and the
learned counsel for appellants has showed his
reluctance in not arguing the appeal finally, we find that
no good ground is made out for enlarging the appellants
on bail.
The bail application of the appellants- Surendra Prasad
Mishra and Bablu alias Alok Kumar involved in S.T. No.
97 of 1995 under sections 302 I.P.C., police station
Amethi, District Sultanpur is, accordingly, rejected.
List the matter in the next cause list peremptorily before

appropriate Bench for final hearing. "

4. This second application for bail has been filed by

appellant no. 2 - Bablu alias Alok Kumar alone on 05.09.2023.

 Page No. 5 of 42

5. Submission of the counsel for the appellant no.

2/applicant's counsel was that he was on bail earlier, therefore,

he be enlarged on bail.

6. As regards the second bail application of the appellant

no. 2 we find that his earlier bail application which was filed

after his incarceration consequent to issuance of non-bailable

warrant was rejected on the ground that the counsel was not

ready to argue the matter. Today, the situation is that none has

appeared on behalf of the appellant no. 1 though counsel for

appellant no. 2 is present. Paper book is ready and the

counsel for the appellant no. 2 is ready for hearing, however,

counsel for the appellant no. 1 is not present.

7. Let a report be requisitioned from the Superintendent of

Jail where the appellant no. 1 is lodged as to whether he

wants to engage another counsel to argue his appeal or wants

that the Court may appoint an Amicus in the matter so that his

appeal be argued. District Legal Services Authority be also

informed about it.

8. As learned counsel for the appellant no. 2 is ready to

argue the appeal, but, none is present for appellant no. 1 who

is in jail and we have requisitioned a response in this regard as

aforesaid which could take time and, as, we propose to refer

 Page No. 6 of 42

certain legal issues for consideration by Larger Bench which

may take some time to be answered and as appellant no. 2

was on bail earlier and his counsel assures us that he will

argue the appeal whenever listed, we are of the opinion that

he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

9. Let appellant no. 2, Bablu alias Alok Kumar be released

on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties

each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate concerned.

10. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished,

photocopies of the same shall be transmitted to this Court

forthwith by the Trial Court concerned to be kept on record of

this appeal.

11. It is made clear that during bail, the applicant-accused

shall not indulge himself in any criminal activity. If he is found

indulging himself in any criminal activity, the prosecution will be

at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail

12. The second bail application is disposed of.

13. While hearing the bail application and reserving the

orders, we noticed an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of

this High Court at Allahabad on 18.01.2024 in Government

 Page No. 7 of 42

Appeal No. 454 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Geeta Devi and

Anr). Noticing the same, we had passed the following order:

"Heard Mr. Anurag Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for

the appellant no. 2 - Bablu alias Alok Kumar and learned
AGA on the second bail application.
During course of argument, learned counsel for the
appellant as also learned AGA once again referred to the
order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at
Allahabad on 18.01.2024 in Government Appeal No. 454
of 2022 wherein certain directions have been issued
empowering the Chief Judicial Magistrate to release a
person on bail where non-bailable warrant has been
issued against him whether it be in appeal against
acquittal or conviction, by the High Court, which
according to them requires reconsideration by a Larger
Bench. They also referred to another order dated
19.01.2024 passed in Government Appeal No. 2552 of
1981 issuing similar directions/order relying upon the
order dated 18.01.2024. They have relied upon Full
Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Balkrishna Mahadev Lad vs. State of Maharashtra; 2012
SCC OnLine Bom 1490, Constitution Bench decision of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P.
vs. Poosu and Another; (1976) 3 SCC 1 and subsequent
decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amin Khan vs.
State of Rajasthan and others; (2009) 3 SCC 776.
We have heard the bail application as also on the
aforesaid questions.
We reserve our orders on both the issues."
14. We have perused the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by

the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid appeal. We find that

there are certain observations/directions in the said order as

 Page No. 8 of 42

also in the subsequent order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the

Coordinate Bench in Government Appeal No. 2552 of 1981

(State of U.P. vs. Shamshuddin Khan and others) which

require consideration by a Larger Bench as they have far

reaching consequences on issues which arise while hearing

criminal appeals, and also with regard to jurisdiction of

Magistrate in the execution of non-bailable warrants issued by

the High Court in such appeals, therefore, we proceed to

consider the matter from the said stand point.

15. On a perusal of the orders passed by the Coordinate

Bench on 18.01.2024 and 19.01.2024 as referred

hereinabove, we find that the Coordinate Bench proceeded on

the premise that in appeals arising from acquittal warrants are

issued in such appeals to secure presence of the acquitted

person and that enlargement of such persons who have been

acquitted by the Trial Court, in an appeal against their

acquittal, is a matter of right. In this context, it has referred to a

Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court though it has

not mentioned the cause title and has observed that the said

Full Bench while interpreting the provisions of Section 390 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Code of 1973') has held that the very purpose of

 Page No. 9 of 42

this Section was to ensure presence of an accused before the

Court and based on this the Coordinate Bench has issued

certain directions. The directions issued by the Coordinate

Bench are not only with respect to non-bailable warrants

issued by the High Court in appeals against acquittal but also

in respect of appeals against conviction. The order dated

18.01.2024 reads as under:

"1. Heard learned AGA appearing for the State and

learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present Government Appeal has been filed by the
State against the order of acquittal dated 7.6.2018
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / FTC No. 3,
Muzaffar Nagar in ST No. 299 of 2007, under Sections
302, 201, 364, 120B IPC (State Vs. Brajpal and others).
3. We have gone through the order dated 9.9.2022 of this
Court which was passed on the appeal filed by the State
against the judgment of acquittal dated 7.6.2018. By the
order dated 9.9.2022, the respondents were directed to
furnish personal bond with two sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM. However,
it appears that they could not be served and thereafter
Non bailable warrants were issued and they were
arrested.
4. Learned counsel submits that both the respondents
are in custody since 27.11.2022 i.e for a period of one
year and three months.
5. Though the Bench is not in agreement with the
procedure followed by the Court that in a State appeal
challenging the judgment of acquittal, the issuance of
Non Bailable Warrants would interpretate that police
 Page No. 10 of 42

authority will execute the same and produce the

concerned person before the High Court so that some
effective order be passed with regard to their bail.
However, in the instant case despite acquittal, the
respondents are in judicial custody for more than one
year and three months because bailable warrants were
not executed. It is worth noticing to reproduce Section
390 of Cr.P.C. which read a under :
“Section 390: Arrest of accused in appeal from acquittal:-
When an appeal is presented under section 378, the
High Court may issue a warrant directing that the
accused be arrested and brought before it or any
subordinate Court, and the Court before which he is
brought may commit him to prison pending the disposal
of the appeal or admit him to bail.”
6. Similarity, in order to procure the presence of accused
persons, the Court has an alternative option to order for
attachment of property of person absconding under
Section 83 Cr.P.C.. Further, Section 80 of Cr.P.C.
provides for arrest of person against whom warrant is
issued and it provides for taking security under Section
71 of Cr.P.C for production before the Court, such person
may be released under Section 81 Cr.P.C.
7. A perusal of Section 390 Cr.P.C. clearly gives power to
the Court before whom a accused is brought, either to
send him to prison or admit him to bail. It is also worth
noticing that repeatedly such type of cases are coming
where in appeal in pursuance of the Non Bailable
Warrant issued by the High Court to the accused who
were acquitted from the trial court re languishing in jail for
more than one year because they were either not served
with the warrant or could not engage Advocate in the
High Court. It is held by a full Bench of Bombay High
Court while interpretating provisions of Section 390
Cr.P.C. that the very purpose of this Section is to ensure
presence of an accused before the Court. In view of the
 Page No. 11 of 42

above, we deem it appropriate to issue a direction to the

Director, Judicial Training and Research Institute,
Lucknow to take online seminar of all the Chief Judicial
Magistrates as well as Secretary, District Legal Services
Authority and inform that :
(a) As and when Non Bailable Warrants are issued in
appeal from acquittal and accused is brought before the
CJM / Ilaka Magistrate, he will be admitted bail subject to
furnishing bail bonds to their satisfaction and on
undertaking that they will appear before the High Court
on particular date as per the order of the Court.
(b) Even in cases where appeal against conviction is
pending before the High Court and sentence is
suspended and either he or his counsel could not appear
before the High Court and Non Bailable Warrants are
issued on and produced before the CJM, they will be
released on bail to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with an undertaking that they will appear before the High
Court.
(c) The Director of the Judicial Training and Research
Institute, Lucknow will conduct a survey in the State of
UP to find out where in terms of issuance of Non Bailable
Warrant either in case of bail against acquittal or in case
where accused sentence is suspended, but subsequently
he failed to appear, is in jail (prison) for considerable long
time, they will be released on bail in same terms as
mentioned in above sub para (a) and (b).
(d) Since keeping a person in judicial custody for long
time without any justification violate the right of life and
liberty of such person, after 30 days of this order, if still
bails are not granted, this Court will impose cost of Rs.
50,000/- to be paid by the District State Legal Services
Authority concerned.
8. Be whatsoever, the Court deem it appropriate to
release the respondents on bail.
 Page No. 12 of 42

9. Let the respondents namely Gita Devi and Afzal be

released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
10. Registrar General of this Court is directed to
communicate this order to the Director, Judicial Training
and Research Institute, Lucknow within a week from
today and submit compliance report on the next date
fixed.
Order on Appeal
List the matter 30.01.2024. "
16. Similar observations/directions have been made in its

order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Government Appeal No.

2552 of 1981 relying upon the earlier decision dated

18.01.2024. The said order dated 19.01.2024 read as under:

"1. This Government Appeal was filed in the year 1981

challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of
the opposite parties.
2. As per earlier order dated 14.12.2022, non bailable
warrants were issued against the accused-respondent
no.1 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned was
directed to sent a compliance report.
3. An office report dated 20.01.2023 was later on
submitted stating therein that the sureties of opposite
party/respondent no.1 Shamshuddin are Bashir, who
died on 08.04.2016 and Ram Kripal, who is about 70
years old and cannot walk, whereas all sureties of
respondent nos. 2 and 5 have died.
4. Thereafter again non-bailable warrants were issued
against opposite party nos. 1 and 4 and the matter
remains pending for considerable long time.
 Page No. 13 of 42

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, namely

Shamshuddin Khan submits that he is in jail and
presently detained in District Jail, Banda. Even thereafter
the case was listed on number of occasions but it has
been noticed in the order dated 10.04.2023 that
respondent no.1 namely Shamshuddin Khan is not
traceable though he is already lodged in District Jail,
Banda. The opposite party no.1 is in the judicial custody
since 23.02.2023.
6. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the above
contention.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
issuance of non-bailable-warrants to procure the
presence of respondent no.1 so that he may engage a
counsel and defend his case through the counsel, has no
relevance. We deem it appropriate to grant bail to the
accused-respondent no.1 namely Shamshuddin Khan.
8. Let opposite party no.1- Shamshuddin Khan be
released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
9. In a Government Appeal bearing Government Appeal
No. 454 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Geeta Devi & Anr.),
this Court in similar situation has already directed the
Director, Judicial Training and Research Institute,
Lucknow that an online seminar of all the Chief Judicial
Magistrates through out the Sate of Uttar Pradesh
regarding the procedures to be followed in the matter of
grant of bail of the accused, who are in jail since long
and their appeals are pending for consideration.
10. Such procedures mentioned in the above
Government Appeal give discretion to the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate specially the Ilaka Magistrate to grant
bail in such cases where the purpose of issuance of non-
bailable warrants is to procure the presence of the
accused especially in the cases where an accused
 Page No. 14 of 42

person has acquitted from the trial court and non-bailable

warrants are issued in an appeal filed by the State.
11. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to
communicate this order forthwith to the Director, Judicial
Training and Research Institute, Lucknow within a week
from today and submit compliance report on the next
date fixed.
Order on Appeal
12. List this case on 30.01.2024. "
17. As already stated the said orders raise important issues

pertaining to procedure to be followed by the High Court

hearing criminal appeals, process/warrants to be issued by it,

its execution and jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate in this

regard and, as, there should be reasonable degree of

definiteness and certitude in this regard not only in the mind of

Judges of the High Court exercising such jurisdiction but also

the Magistrates and as general directions have been issued by

the Coordinate Bench to the Chief Judicial Magistrates

throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh with penal

consequences in the event of non compliance and also to

Judicial Training and Research Institute, therefore, it has

become necessary that legal issues in this regard be

clarified/settled by a Larger Bench.

 Page No. 15 of 42

Appeal Against Acquittal

18. First and foremost, we may point out that in an appeal by

the State under Section 378 of the Code of 1973 against

acquittal of the accused, Section 390 of the Code of 1973 is

attracted which reads as under:

"390. Arrest of accused in appeal from acquittal. - When an

appeal is presented under Section 378, the High Court may issue a
warrant directing that the accused be arrested and brought before it
or any subordinate Court, and the Court before which he is brought
may commit him to prison pending the disposal of the appeal or
admit him to bail."
19. Prior to coming into force of the Code of 1973, the

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (hereinafter referred as 'Code

of 1898') was in operation and in the said Code of 1898 also a

pari materia provisions existed in the form of Section 427

which read as under:

"427. When an appeal is presented under Section 417,

the High Court may issue a warrant directing that the
accused be arrested and brought before it or any
subordinate Court, and the Court before which he is
brought may commit him to prison pending the disposal
of the appeal, or admit him to bail."
20. The aforesaid Section 427 of the Code of 1898 and

Section 390 of the Code of 1973 came up for consideration

before a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

the case of State of U.P. vs. Poosu and Another; (1976) 3

SCC 1. The question referred to the Constitution Bench was:

 Page No. 16 of 42

"Whether the Supreme Court while granting special leave to

appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, against an order

of acquittal on a capital charge, has the power to issue a non-

bailable warrant for the arrest and committal to prison of the

accused respondent who had been acquitted by the High

Court?

21. Hon'ble the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider

the historical perspective of the aforesaid provisions and it

observed that such provision was enacted for the first time in

the Code of 1882, but even before its enactment, the High

Court as a matter of judicial practice, had the power, pending

the appeal against an order of acquittal, to secure the

attendance of the accused respondent by bailable or non-

bailable warrants. It referred to a Full Bench decision of the

Allahabad High Court in the case of Empress of India vs.

Mangu; ILR (1879) 2 All 340 wherein it was held that the High

Court has the power to cause the arrest and detention of the

accused in prison, pending an appeal against an order of

acquittal. It referred to various other decisions which were to

the same effect. It observed that this power was ancillary to

and necessary for an effective exercise of its jurisdiction in an

appeal against an order of acquittal conferred on the High

 Page No. 17 of 42

Court by the Code. It referred to an English case i.e. Bana Vs.

Methuen; 2 Bens 228 decided way-back in 1824 wherein

Best, J. following an older precedent, enunciated the rule that -

"when an act of Parliament gives a justice jurisdiction over an

offence, it impliedly gives him a power to make out a warrant,

and bring before him any person charged with such offence".

Hon'ble the Constitution Bench has observed that this was the

rationale of Section 427 of the Code of 1898.

22. It further observed that as soon as the High Court on

perusing a petition of appeal against an order of acquittal,

considers that there is sufficient ground for interfering and

issuing process to the respondent, his status as an accused

person and the proceedings against him, revive. The question

of judging his guilt or innocence in respect of the charge

against him, once more becomes sub judice. It then went on to

observe that Article 136 of the Constitution of India confers on

the Supreme Court the same power which was vested in the

High Court under Section 427 of the Code of 1898

corresponding to the existing Section 390 of the Code of 1973.

It then considered the question as to whether in the

circumstances of the case, the attendance of the accused

respondent can be best secured by issuing a bailable warrant

 Page No. 18 of 42

or non-bailable warrant and it held that it is a matter which

rests entirely in the discretion of the Court. It observed as

under:

"Whether in the circumstances of the case the

attendance of the accused respondent can be best
secured by issuing a bailable warrant or non-bailable
warrant is a matter which rests entirely in the discretion
of the Court. Although, the discretion is exercised
judicially, it is not possible to computerise and reduce into
immutable formulae the diverse considerations on the
basis of which this discretion is exercised. Broadly
speaking, the Court would take into account the various
factors such as,
"the nature and seriousness of the offence, the
character of the evidence, circumstances peculiar to the
accused, possibility of his absconding, larger interest of
the public and State (see State v. Capt. Jagjit Singh; AIR
1962 SC 253)".
In addition, the Court may also take into consideration
the period during which the proceedings against the
accused were pending in the courts below and the period
which is likely to elapse before the appeal comes up for
final hearing in this Court. In the context, it must be
remembered that this over-riding discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 136 is invoked sparingly, in exceptional
cases, where the order of acquittal recorded by the High
Court is perverse or clearly erroneous and results in a
gross miscarriage of justice."
23. Most important it repelled the contention made before it

that an order directing the rearrest and detention of an

accused respondent who had been acquitted by the High

 Page No. 19 of 42

Court of a capital offence, in any way, offends Article 21 or any

other fundamental right guaranteed in Part III of the

Constitution. It held that by no stretch of imagination could it

be said that such an order deprives the accused respondent of

his liberty in a manner otherwise than in accordance with

procedure established by law.

24. Thus, from a reading of the said Constitution Bench

decision, it is clear that even in an appeal against acquittal the

the presence of the acquitted person can be secured either by

issuing bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant at the

discretion of the appellate Court which is to be exercised in the

light of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court. The arrest of such an acquitted person consequent to

the aforesaid does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

25. We may now refer to the Full Bench decision of the

Bombay High Court details of which have not been mentioned

by the Coordinate Bench, but, on our own research we find

that the said Full Bench decision has been rendered in the

case of Balkrishna Mahadev Lad vs. State of Maharashtra;

2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1490. On a reading the said Full

Bench decision, we find that two questions were referred for its

consideration which are as under:

 Page No. 20 of 42

"(a) When in an appeal against acquittal an action of

issuing warrant for arresting the accused is directed in
accordance with section 390 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, whether the Accused is entitled to bail
as a matter of right and whether the learned Sessions
Judge before whom the Accused is brought has no
power to direct that the Accused shall be committed to
prison till disposal of the Appeal?
(b) Whether this Court has power to direct that every
breach committed by Sessions Judge of the direction
issued by this Court will always constitute contempt of
this Court?"
26. While considering question no. 1 it found that some of the

decisions by the Division Benches which led to the reference

before the Larger Bench were rendered without referring to the

legal position expounded by the Apex Court in the case of

Poosu (supra). The said Division Benches also proceeded on

the premise as if the enlargement of a person acquitted on bail

by the Trial Court was a matter of right whereas the legal

position in Poosu (supra) was entirely different. In this context

it observed as under:

"Notably, the abovesaid observations have been made

without referring to the legal position expounded by the
Apex Court in the case of Poosu (supra). Indubitably, a
person who is acquitted of the criminal charges, by a
Court of law, should not remain in jail even for a day after
acquittal. But, that does not necessarily follow that the
subordinate Court, before whom the acquitted accused is
produced, in connection with the order passed by the
High Court in an appeal against his acquittal, cannot
commit him to prison even if the fact situation so
warrants."
 Page No. 21 of 42

27. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court took notice of

the Apex Court decision in the case of Poosu (supra). It also

considered the provisions of Section 390 of the Code of 1973

and in this context it observed as under:

"8. A bare perusal of this provision leaves no manner of

doubt that the High Court is expected to exercise its
judicial discretion on case to case basis to issue a
warrant (bailable or non-bailable) directing that the
accused be arrested and brought before it or be
produced before the subordinate Court for compliance
thereof. The opening part of this Section makes it amply
clear that the judicial discretion can be exercised at any
stage, after the presentation of the appeal under Section
378 of the Code. Thus, presentation of such appeal is a
sine qua non for exercise of this judicial discretion, in
terms of Section 390 of the Code.
9. Reverting to the other facet of this provision, when an
accused is acquitted by the subordinate Court, after a
full-fledged trial, the High Court, while issuing direction in
exercise of powers under Section 390 of the Code, may,
in a given case, issue "bailable warrants" directing
production of the accused before it or the subordinate
Court for compliance thereof. If the accused is produced
before the subordinate Court, pursuant to such "bailable
warrants" issued by the High Court, the subordinate
Court may release that accused on bail on terms and
conditions which must be just and proper to secure the
presence of the accused. Indeed, if the accused is
unable to fulfill the terms and conditions for release on
bail, the subordinate Court will be justified in directing
committal of the accused to prison. However, he must
soon thereafter intimate that fact to the High Court.
Notwithstanding the power given to the subordinate
 Page No. 22 of 42

Court under Section 390 of the Code, it cannot direct that

the accused be committed to prison even if he is capable
of and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail.
Further, if the High Court in its order issuing "bailable
warrants" has already spelt out the terms and conditions
then the subordinate Court cannot add to or relax such
conditions, but is expected to ensure compliance of
those directions of the High Court.
10. Similarly, if the High Court were to issue "non bailable
warrants" recording reasons indicative of committing the
accused to prison only, even in that case, the
subordinate Court, before whom the accused is
produced or appears in response to warrant so issued,
will have no option but to commit such accused to prison.
11. The Sessions Court, however, can exercise its
judicial discretion when the High Court in its order has
not indicated either way to commit the accused to prison
or to admit him to bail, pending the disposal of the
appeal. In other words, if the High Court, in its order,
merely directs initiation of action under Section 390 of
the Code and if the accused is produced before the
subordinate Court, it would be open to the subordinate
Court, after taking into account all aspects of the matter,
either to admit the accused to bail on such terms and
conditions as it may be deem fit keeping in mind that the
same are essential to secure the presence of the
accused when required in the pending appeal or to
commit him to prison. That judicial discretion has to be
exercised on the basis of settled parameters and, inter
alia, keeping in mind the question, as to whether
releasing the accused on bail would not hamper securing
his attendance pending the disposal of the appeal
against acquittal in the High Court."
 Page No. 23 of 42

Thus, there is a discretion vested in the Magistrate to be

exercised judicially in cases covered by Para 11 quoted above

and he is not bound to release him.

28. Thus, as per the Full Bench of Bombay High Court, if

orders for issuance of bailable warrants are issued in terms of

Section 390 of the Code of 1973 by the appellate Court, the

subordinate Court may release the accused on bail on the

terms and conditions which must be just and proper to secure

the presence of the accused but if the accused is unable to

fulfill the terms and conditions for release on bail, the

subordinate Court will be justified in directing committal of the

accused to prison. However, he must soon thereafter intimate

that fact to the High Court.

29. It has further observed that if the High Court in its order

issuing bailable warrants has already spelt out the terms and

conditions then the subordinate Court cannot add to or relax

such conditions, but is expected to ensure compliance of those

directions of the High Court. Similarly, it has observed that if

the High Court were to issue non-bailable warrants recording

reasons indicative of committing the accused to prison only,

even in that case, the subordinate Court, before whom the

accused is produced or appears in response to warrant so

 Page No. 24 of 42

issued, will have no other option but to commit such accused

to prison.

30. It has then observed that the Sessions Court, however,

can exercise its judicial discretion when the High Court in its

order has not indicated either way to commit the accused to

prison or to admit him to bail, pending the disposal of the

appeal. In other words, if the High Court, in its order, merely

directs initiation of action under Section 390 of the Code of

1973 and if the accused is produced before the subordinate

Court, it would be open to the subordinate Court after taking

into account all aspects of the matter, either to admit the

accused to bail on such terms and conditions as it may be

deemed fit keeping in mind that the same are essential to

secure the presence of the accused when required in the

pending appeal or to commit him to prison. This judicial

discretion has to be exercised on the basis of settled

parameters and, inter alia, keeping in mind the question, as to

whether releasing the accused on bail would not hamper

securing his attendance pending the disposal of the appeal

against acquittal in the High Court. Even as per the Bombay

High Court, this is not to be done mechanically.

 Page No. 25 of 42

31. Thus, even as per the Bombay High Court in the context

of an appeal against acquittal an action is taken under Section

390 of the Code of 1973 the acquitted person can either be

enlarged on bail or committed to prison depending upon the

facts of the case and the discretion to be exercised judicially

by the concerned Court.

32. The Full Bench was of the considered opinion that -

"Section 390 of the Code of 1973 cannot be read to mean that

the Sessions Judge, on production of the accused, has no

option but to immediately release him on bail, instead it held

the subordinate Court before whom the accused is produced

pursuant to warrant issued in terms of the order of the High

Court, must exercise his judicial discretion on case to case

basis and in particular keeping in mind the order of the High

Court, passed in the pending appeal against acquittal in that

regard. This would presuppose that the Sessions Judge, in

appropriate case, can commit the accused to prison till the

disposal of the appeal. Indeed, in that case, it will be open to

the accused to question that decision of the Sessions Judge,

before the High Court, in which proceedings, the High Court

may consider the claim of the accused for grant of bail. Thus

understood, grant of bail by the subordinate Court is not a

 Page No. 26 of 42

matter of right." [Para 13 of the Full Bench - Balkrishna

Mahadev Lad (supra)].

33. In fact, it found that the Division Bench judgment in

Farooq Abdul Gani Surve vs. The State of Maharashtra;

2012 ALL MR (CRI) 271 wherein it was held that the accused

is entitled to be released on bail as a matter of rule is not the

correct statement of law and it is in the teeth of the exposition

of law by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case

of Poosu (supra) as also the purport of Section 390 of the

Code of 1973.

34. The Full Bench also took note of the introduction of

Section 437A in the Code of 1973 w.e.f. 31.12.2009 which is

as under:

"18. As a matter of fact, after introduction of Section

437A w.e.f. 31st December, 2009, the Trial Court, at the
conclusion of the trial, or the Appellate Court including
the High Court before disposal of the appeal, as the case
may be, is duty bound to ensure that the accused must
execute bail bond to appear before the Higher Court and
such bail bond must be kept in force for six months.
Section 437A, as introduced by the Act 5 of 2009, reads
thus:
"[437A. Bail to require accused to appear before next
appellate Court.- (1) Before conclusion of the trial and
before disposal of the appeal, the Court trying the
offence or the Appellate Court, as the case may be, shall
require the accused to execute bail bonds with sureties,
 Page No. 27 of 42

to appear before the higher Court as and when such

Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition
filed against the judgment of the respective Court and
such bail bonds shall be in force for six months."
It then observed as under:

"19. This provision reinforces that even if the Trial Court

or the Appellate Court, as the case may be, is inclined to
acquit the accused, it has to ensure that the accused
must execute a bail bond with surety to appear before
the Higher Court and this bail bond must be kept in force
for six months. The period of six months is specified in
anticipation that the appeal against acquittal would be
filed, either by the State or the victim/complainant, within
such period and if the appeal against acquittal is filed,
the accused would make himself available in the said
proceedings."
It finally expressed its opinion succinctly as under:

"20) Accordingly, we hold that the accused is not entitled

to bail as a matter of right merely because he has been
acquitted. Further, the subordinate Court, before whom
the accused is produced, has judicial discretion to direct
the accused to be committed to prison or to admit him to
bail keeping in mind the order of the High Court, pending
disposal of the appeal. Indeed, that judicial discretion has
to be exercised in consonance with the settled
parameters."
35. Thus, there is a discretion vested in this regard which has

to be exercised judicially by the High Court or the Chief

Judicial Magistrate as the case may be on case to case basis.

36. We may in this context also refer to another decision of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amin Khan vs. State of

Rajasthan and others; (2009) 3 SCC 776 wherein the High

 Page No. 28 of 42

Court while admitting the appeal against acquittal committed

the acquitted person to prison for justifiable reasons and the

said order committing the acquitted person to prison during

pendency of the appeal against their acquittal was upheld by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hon'ble the Supreme Court did

not find any error in the said order, it inter alia observed as

under:

"Section 390 corresponds to Section 427 of the repealed

Code. In the present section the word and figure "Section
378" are substituted for the words and figures "Section
411-A, sub-section (2) of Section 417" in the old section.
Except for this change, no other changes are made.
Under this section the High Court has the power to
rearrest the accused pending the disposal of an appeal
against his acquittal."
37. The Coordinate Bench while making observations/

directions vide its order dated 18.01.2024 and 19.01.2024, it

seems, has missed out on the ratio of the Full Bench decision

of the Bombay High Court as also the judgment of Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in Poosu (supra) and Amin Khan (supra).

38. In an appeal against acquittal in order to secure the

presence of an acquitted person bailable warrants are issued

in view of the provisions contained in Section 390 of the Code

of 1973. Once the bailable warrants are executed and the

person appears before the Court below and submits requisite

undertaking along with Sureties or Personal Bonds as may

 Page No. 29 of 42

have been directed by the appellate Court and, if not directed,

to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned,

as the case may be, and the said person appears before the

appellate Court on the date fixed, the appellate Court shall

proceed with the matter accordingly. Even an acquitted person

can be committed to prison for justifiable reasons as discussed

by the Constitution Bench in Poosu (supra) and this would

not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

39. If at a subsequent stage of the appeal, he fails to appear

either personally or through his counsel, then, the appellate

Court would be justified in securing his presence by issuance

of bailable warrants as is normally the practice in the

Allahabad High court. Straightway non-bailable warrants are

not issued in such a situation. If even this fails to secure his

presence his sureties can be proceeded. Ordinarily at this

stage process under Section 82/83 of the Code of 1973 is not

adopted. If even after proceeding against the sureties,

presence of the person concerned cannot be secured, may be

because they have died or for any other reason, then, the High

Court has no option but to secure his presence by issuance of

non-bailable warrants. At this stage, if necessary process

under Section 82/83 of the Code of 1973 can be adopted.

 Page No. 30 of 42

40. We may also point out in an appeal against acquittal

ordinarily High Court does not issue non-bailable warrants at

the initial stage, but, only issues bailable warrants under

Section 390 of the Code of 1973 or orders for its issuance.

41. We may also point out that in an appeal against acquittal

ordinarily the presence of the acquitted person is secured

initially by issuance of bailable warrants which is not to say

that the appellate Court in a given circumstance can not issue

a non-bailable warrants, but, ordinarily this is not done. It is

only when the presence cannot be secured after issuance of

bailable warrants that non-bailable warrants are issued.

42. Now, the moot point is as to whether in an appeal against

acquittal where non-bailable warrants have issued especially

at the subsequent stage of the appeal (not admission stage),

as discussed hereinabove, the Chief Judicial Magistrate can

on his own, without there being any stipulation in the order of

the High court to release the accused on bail if he appears,

release him, as has been directed by the Coordinate Bench in

Government Appeal No. 454 of 2022; whether it amounts to

vesting the Chief Judicial Magistrate with a power and

jurisdiction which the Statute and the law does not vest in him

and whether it will not divest and deprive the High Court of the
 Page No. 31 of 42

discretion and jurisdiction it exercises in this regard as an an

appellate criminal Court? Assuming the Magistrate has this

jurisdiction and power, whether the general directions issued

by the Coordinate Bench dated 18.01.2024 and 19.01.2024 do

not deprive even the Magistrate of his discretion in this regard

in view of the law discussed hereinabove by making it

mandatory to release such person? Whether such general

directions can be issued by the High Court making it

mandatory for the Chief Judicial Magistrate to release a

person in such a situation without applying his mind on case to

case basis, assuming that he has power to do? These are

important issues which have far reaching consequences which

require consideration, in our humble opinion, by a Larger

Bench, as, another view is quite possible.

43. Much depends in this regard upon the format of the order

passed by the High Court in the context of Section 390 of the

Code of 1973 at the time of admission of the appeal or

thereafter. Ordinarily, the Allahabad High Court does not itself

issue bailable warrants, but, orders the same to be issued

through the Chief Judicial Magistrate or with the stipulation

that the warrants be issued for its execution through the Chief

Judicial Magistrate and even in such eventuality it is the latter

 Page No. 32 of 42

who issues the warrants. If there is certainty and uniformity, as

far as possible, in the orders for issuance of warrants

containing the terms and conditions of warrants by the High

Court in exercise of its appellant criminal jurisdiction, much of

the confusion in this regard would be allayed, therefore, this is

also an aspect which can be considered as it will bring about

certainty and definiteness as to the execution of bailable

warrants and who is to exercise the discretion as discussed

hereinabove.

44. Now, in this context we have considered Section 437 of

the Code of 1973 and find that the said provision is applicable

at the initial stage of a criminal case and it does not empower

the Chief Judicial Magistrate to encroach upon the powers of

the appellate Court which has issued the non-bailable

warrants. Section 437 of the Code of 1973 will have no play in

such situation as, the High Court had issued the bailable

warrants, it alone can determine the terms of its execution.

Likewise, for the same reason, Section 81 of the Code of 1973

can also not be read and understood as empowering the Chief

Judicial Magistrate to encroach upon the powers of the

appellate Court which has issued the non-bailable warrants

and release the person on bail without there being any

 Page No. 33 of 42

stipulation in the order of the High Court for such release, once

the order for issuance of warrant has been issued by the

appellate Court, especially in the case of non-bailable warrant

in view of Section 71 of the Code of 1973. The Chief Judicial

Magistrate or any other Magistrate cannot add or subtract

anything to the order of bailable warrant issued by the High

court in exercise of its appellate power.

45. Moreover, the second proviso to Section 81 is to be read

with Section 78 (2) of the Code of 1973 which applies only in

cases where warrants are forwarded outside the jurisdiction of

the Court and, therefore, it has no play so far as issues

involved herein is concerned.

46. The procedure under Section 82/83 of the Code of 1973

should not be adopted prior to issuance of non-bailable

warrants i.e. at the stage of bailable warrants.

47. However, in the event a person is committed to prison on

account of default in the sense the direction of the appellate

Court is to take sureties and then release him on bail and he is

unable to provide the sureties on account of which he is sent

to prison and remains there, then, that would be situation

which needs to be remedied at the earliest as he is not sent to

jail by a conscious decision of the Court in the exercise of the

 Page No. 34 of 42

judicial discretion in light of the parameters discussed in

Poosu (supra) and other decisions of the Supreme Court and

the High Courts, but, he has been sent to prison by default. In

such a scenario in our view the Court which commits him to

prison should immediately inform the High Court where the

appeal against his acquittal is pending and the Administrative

side of the High Court to take immediate steps to place the

matter before the concerned Bench which has been assigned

such matters at the earliest which should consider the matter

as per law as to whether he is entitled to be released on bail or

certain changes in the condition of bailable warrant are

required. In addition to it in such cases the Chief Judicial

Magistrate or any other Magistrate should immediately inform

the District Legal Services Authority or the State Legal

Services Authority or the High Court Legal Services

Committee which should take immediate steps, especially in

cases where for absence of proper legal advice such person

remains in jail so that necessary legal advice and assistance is

provided to him and his matter is considered by the High

Court. This, in our view, would be the solution for meeting with

such cases. There may be other solutions which can be

considered by the High Court even on the Administrative Side.

 Page No. 35 of 42

48. We are also conscious of the fact that keeping acquitted

person in jail for long is not justified and appropriate measures

should be taken so that they are provided legal aid at the

earliest and their cases for grant of bail are considered at the

earliest, but, only by the competent Court. Whether the Chief

Judicial Magistrate can do it, if so, under what circumstances,

is the moot point which requires consideration.

Appeal Against Conviction

49. The Coordinate Bench in Government Appeal No. 2552

of 1981 not only issued directions with regard to release of an

accused against whom non-bailable warrants have been

issued by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal, but

similar directions have been issued for release of the appellant

who has filed an appeal against his conviction.

50. Now, with great respect, we are of the opinion that an

appellant challenging his conviction stands on a different

footing viz-a-viz a person who has been acquitted by the Trial

Court, but, his acquittal is under challenge in appeal. In an

appeal against conviction such as the present one, Section

390 of the Code of 1973 does not apply and there is already a

pronouncement by the Trial Court convicting such person and

sentencing him to prison, therefore, the parameters for grant of

 Page No. 36 of 42

bail or for committing him to prison in such appeals against

conviction are very different.

51. Apparently, in such cases, the appellant is enlarged on

bail in his appeal filed against his conviction and the question

of issuance of non-bailable warrants arises only at a

subsequent stage when for the reasons which may be similar

to those already discussed hereinabove, such appellant fails to

appear thereby frustrating hearing of appeal against his

conviction making it necessary to secure his presence, but, the

Coordinate Bench has treated both the appeals against

acquittal and conviction on the same footing, which in our

humble opinion, may not be correct and this aspect is also

required to be considered by a Larger Bench.

52. Moreover, we have a mechanism of providing legal aid

through the District Legal Aid Services Authority or the State

Legal Services Authority or the High Court Legal Services

Committee in cases where the convicted or acquitted person is

languishing in jail consequent to execution of such non-

bailable warrants. These bodies can be directed to identify

such persons and do the needful.

53. There are certain practicalities also involved in this

context. If even after issuance of non-bailable warrants in the

 Page No. 37 of 42

circumstances discussed hereinabove i.e. at a stage

subsequent to the initial stage of entertaining/admitting an

appeal against acquittal or ordering releasing of the appellant

in an appeal against conviction, the accused-respondent

continues to avoid the proceedings and on issuance of non-

bailable warrants, the Chief Judicial Magistrate releases him in

compliance of the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench

in Government Appeal No. 454 of 2022, how the appeal would

be heard and how the High Court would be able to secure his

presence because in such circumstances where, even after

release on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate after issuance

of non-bailable warrants by the High Court, if such accused

again does not appear in spite of an undertaking given to that

effect, then, the High Court will again have to again issue non-

bailable warrants and the entire process will again have to be

repeated which may include the process under Section 82/83

of the Code of 1973, etc., but, this cannot be an unending

process and in a given case it may frustrate the hearing of an

appeal. This aspect can be clarified by the Larger Bench.

54. Of course, some of the cases in recent times (for

example Criminal Appeal No. 3757 of 2023 (Krishna Kumar

and others vs. State of U.P.) decided on 01.12.2023),

 Page No. 38 of 42

Hon'ble the Supreme Court has disapproved the practice by

the High Court of cancelling the bail where the appellant's

counsel did not appear instead it observed that the appeal

could have been heard by appointing an Amicus Curiae for

him. There are other decisions of the Supreme Court of India

such as those rendered in the case of Bani Singh and others

vs. State of U.P.; (1996) 4 SCC 720; K.S. Panduranga vs.

State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721; Surya Baksha Singh

vs. State of U.P. (2014) 14 SCC 222 wherein the question of

deciding appeals on merit in the absence of the appellant

(convict) or respondent (acquitted person) has been

considered. The question is whether in such cases where the

appellant or his counsel is not appearing, though he may be

traceable, instead of issuing bailable or non-bailable warrants,

can the Court straightaway appoint an Amicus Curiae without

seeking his consent, hear and decide the matter or decide it

on merits without appointing any Amicus, necessarily so,

invariably, or there is some discretion vested in this regard?

55. The legal position and the practice which should

ordinarily be followed by this Court in such cases should also

be determined and some guidance should be provided by a

Larger Bench so that there should be certain degree of

 Page No. 39 of 42

uniformity in hearing of appeals and the procedures to be

followed in this regard by the different Benches of the High

Court within the parameters of law.

56. The reference is also necessary as the Coordinate Bench

has issued directions to the Director, Judicial Training and

Research Institute, Lucknow to hold a seminar and apprise the

Chief Judicial Magistrates and Magistrates of the legal position

on the subject in the light of what has been held in the

aforesaid orders dated 18.01.2024 and 19.01.2024. It is,

therefore, all the more necessary that first of all we should be

clear about the legal position before communicating it to the

Courts below for compliance as otherwise it may result in

confusion and chaos.

57. In our humble opinion, the observations made and the

directions issued by the Coordinate Bench as referred

hereinabove require a reconsideration by a Larger Bench so

that the legal position in this regard is settled and there is no

confusion in the minds of the Advocates and Judges,

especially the Judges of the District Court. Once the position

is clarified the Judicial Training and Research Institute should

hold a seminar, etc. and apprise the Judicial Officers about the

same.
 Page No. 40 of 42

58. We may in this context quote Rule 6 Chapter V of the

Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which is as under:

"6. Reference to a larger Bench:- The Chief Justice may

constitute a Bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or
any question of law formulated by a Bench hearing a case. In
the latter event the decision of such Bench on the question
so formulated shall be returned to the Bench hearing the
case and that Bench shall follow that decision on such
question and dispose of the case after deciding the
remaining questions, if any, arising therein. "

59. The aforesaid Rule permits a Bench of the High Court to

refer a question of law formulated by it for consideration by a

Bench of two or more Judges to be constituted by the Chief

Justice. Thus, a reference is permissible under the Rules of

the Court not only in the event of a conflict between two

Coordinate Benches, but also in a case where important

questions of law are involved, which according to a particular

Bench, are required to be considered by a Larger Bench. We

are also of the opinion that important questions of law and

procedure relating to hearing of criminal appeals whether

against acquittal or conviction have arisen on account of the

orders passed by the Coordinate Bench as also in view of the

procedure being followed by different Benches of the High

Court, which require certain clarity.

 Page No. 41 of 42

60. We, therefore, refer the matter for consideration by a

Larger Bench to be constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in

exercise of his powers under Chapter V Rule 6 of the

Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

61. We frame the following questions for consideration by the

Larger Bench:

"(1) Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any

other Magistrate can enlarge an acquitted
person or a person convicted of an offence on
bail even in a case where in an appeal against
acquittal or conviction, as the case may be, the
High Court or any other appellate Court has
issued non-bailable warrants for securing his
presence without any such stipulation therein for
release by the Court below, more so when such
non-bailable warrant has been issued at a
subsequent stage of appeal and not the
admission stage?
(2) Assuming the Magistrate has jurisdiction as
referred in Question No. 1, whether a general
direction of a mandatory nature can be issued by
the High Court to the Magistrate for such
release, as has been done vide order dated
18.01.2024 passed in Government Appeal No.
454 of 2022 and order dated 19.01.2024 passed
in Government Appeal No. 2552 of 1981, does it
not deprive the Magistrate of his discretion in this
regard to consider such release on case to case
basis in view of the law discussed?
(3) Whether the observations and directions as
contained in the order dated 18.01.2024 passed
in Government Appeal No. 454 of 2022 (State
of U.P. vs. Geeta Devi and another) and the
directions dated 19.01.2024 in Government
Appeal No. 2552 of 1981 (State of U.P. Vs.
 Page No. 42 of 42

Shamshuddin Khan and others) are in

accordance with law?
(4) What are the modes prescribed in law for
securing the presence of acquitted person or one
who has been convicted, in an appeal before the
High Court and what should be the course to be
ordinarily adopted by the High Court in exercise
of its appellate criminal jurisdiction for securing
such presence to facilitate hearing of such
appeals?
(5) Whether an appeal, either against acquittal or
conviction, can be heard by appointing an
Amicus Curiae for the accused-respondent or
the convicted-appellant, as the case may be, in
the event he is not appearing in the appellate
proceedings though his presence can be
secured, without his consent and without any
intimation to him, if so, under what
circumstances?"

62. Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

[Narendra Kumar Johari, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

Order Date:- 12.03.2024
Santosh/-

Digitally signed by :-
SANTOSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench