Sanjay Shanker Manwal vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Din, J.—Applicant Sanjay Shanker Manwal is an accused in case No. RC No.32 (A)/96/CBILucknow pending in the Court of the Special Judge (Ayurved Scam matter), Lucknow. The applicant failed to attend the Court on 1862001, therefore, the Special Judge passed an order on 1862001 directing issue of nonbailable warrant of arrest against him which is under challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant sustained injuries on 1362001 in an accident. He was immediately rushed to the K.G.M.C., Lucknow where he was admitted as indoor patient and is as yet being treated therein as indoor patient. In the impugned order, it is stated that the accused has knowledge about the summons issued against him. This fact has wrongly been stated in the impugned order. According to him, when he was confined in bed at K.G.M.C., Lucknow and there was none to inform about the date, how could the has had notice of this summons issued by the Court. It is further submitted that the C.B.I, has again misguided the Court that he applicant is absconding. On that basis the Court has mentioned in the order dated 2362001 that the nonbailable warrant of arrest issued against the applicant has been returned with the report that he is absconding from his house in order to avoid his arrest. The applicant is taking treatment as indoor patient at K.G.M.C. Lucknow and is not absconding.

In support of his submission, the reliance has been placed on the Annexure Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the application.

Having regard to the facts that the applicant is confined in the Hospital from 1362001 and till the day, he has not been discharged from the Hospital. Therefore, he has not been in a position to attend the Court on the dates fixed during this period. As far relates to the service of summons, the Court has indicated that it was returned unexecuted. Thus, it is evident that the summons was not served on the applicant. Section 87 (a) Cr. P.C. provides that the Court may issue warrantof arrest it, either before the issue of such summons, or alter the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons. Subsection (b) of Section 87 Cr. P.C. further provides that if, at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure.

In the case in hand, it is evident that ihe summons was not executed and for the cause shown in the application and the papers filed in support there of prove that the summons could not have been served and also the applicant could not know about the fixation of date in the Court for his appearance.

In the above circumstances, I am of the view that, the order dated 2362001 and 1862001 issuing nonbailable warrant of arrest deserve to be quashed.

The application is partly allowed and the orders dated 2362001 and 1862001 are quashed. The applicant, as soon as, is discharged from the Hospital, he shall inform the Court and attend the Court on the date fixed thereafter.

The prayer for quashing of the chargesheet has not been pressed at this stage and the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant prays for a liberty to file a fresh application for quashing the chargesheet.

The liberty is accordingly granted.