# Akash Mishra @ Vakeel v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 986 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-18 - **Bench:** Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akash-mishra-vakeel-v-state-of-u-p-44097 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote respect of the offences punishable under Sections 380, 411 of the IPC. The accused was arrested and was released on bail by the Court of Sessions. However, subsequently, when the charge-sheet came to be filed, one more offence viz.- offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC, was added therein. The Magistrate 7 All. Akash Mishra @ Vakeel. Vs State Of U.P. 987 observed that the petitioner had not obtained bail with respect to that offence and, therefore, issued a nonbailable warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, invoking the inherent powers of this Court and praying that the order issuing non-bailable warrant as passed by the learned Magistrate, be quashed. The petitioner should be allowed to remain on the same bail, unless the Magistrate thinks it necessary to cancel the bail granted to him in view of the addition of a new charge. It is made clear that in a such case the Magistrate shall issue a notice to the petitioner and give him an opportunity of being heard against the cancellation of bail; and then pass an order in accordance with the law. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: ## Text 986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES valuation is above Rs.25,00,000/- is based on misreading and misinterpretation of the notification in question. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any illegality in the order of the District Judge returning the memo of revision for being presented before the court of competent pecuniary jurisdiction. 12. Since the petitioner has the remedy of filing revision under Section 115 C.P.C. and thus, this Court declines to go into the validity of the order of the trial court dated 23.2.2016 and leaves it open to the petitioner to present the memo of revision before the court of competent jurisdiction. 13. It is clarified that in case the memo of revision is presented by the petitioner again before this Court, the Stamp Reporter shall be guided by the pronouncement made by this Court in the instant matter. 14. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Stamp Reporter Section for information and necessary action. 15. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 18.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ABHAY MAHADEO THIPSAY, J. Application U/s 482/378/407 No.- 4413 Of 2016 Akash Mishra @ Vakeel. ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Abhishek Singh Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate The petitioner is one of the accused in the charge-sheet No.262 of 2014 filed on 08.11.2014 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No.28, District Lucknow. Initially, the crime was registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 380, 411 of the IPC. The accused was arrested and was released on bail by the Court of Sessions. However, subsequently, when the charge-sheet came to be filed, one more offence viz.- offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC, was added therein. The Magistrate 7 All. Akash Mishra @ Vakeel. Vs State Of U.P. 987 observed that the petitioner had not obtained bail with respect to that offence and, therefore, issued a nonbailable warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, invoking the inherent powers of this Court and praying that the order issuing non-bailable warrant as passed by the learned Magistrate, be quashed. The petitioner should be allowed to remain on the same bail, unless the Magistrate thinks it necessary to cancel the bail granted to him in view of the addition of a new charge. It is made clear that in a such case the Magistrate shall issue a notice to the petitioner and give him an opportunity of being heard against the cancellation of bail; and then pass an order in accordance with the law. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: (Delivered by Hon'ble Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioner is one of the accused in the charge-sheet No.262 of 2014 filed on 08.11.2014 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No.28, District Lucknow. Initially, the crime was registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 380, 411 of the IPC. The accused was arrested and was released on bail by the Court of Sessions. However, subsequently, when the charge-sheet came to be filed, one more offence viz.- offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC, was added therein. The Magistrate observed that the petitioner had not obtained bail with respect to that offence and, therefore, issued a non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition, invoking the inherent powers of this Court and praying that the order issuing non-bailable warrant as passed by the learned Magistrate, be quashed. 4. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was released on bail, the Investigating Agency had not mentioned anything about the offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC. Thus, it is not that the bail obtained by the petitioner was by suppressing the facts. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that it was open for the Investigating Officer to delete some of the charges, or to add some of the charges, which were not initially levelled, as a result of the investigation. This proposition cannot be faulted. 6. However, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate was not proper or legal. The petitioner is on bail in the same case and by adding one offence in the list of the offences, the case does not become a different case. The bail in this case had been granted by the Court of Sessions. It 988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES is not the case that the petitioner had committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the bail. The proper course, for the Magistrate, therefore, would have been to summon the petitioner and to hear him on the question of bail in view of the additional accusation of a more serious offence, i.e., of an offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC. 7. In the circumstances, the order issuing non-bailable warrant is not just and proper. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that the petitioner is ready to appear before the Magistrate. 9. In my opinion, the petitioner should be allowed to remain on the same bail, unless the Magistrate thinks it necessary to cancel the bail granted to him in view of the addition of a new charge. It is made clear that in a such case the Magistrate shall issue a notice to the petitioner and give him an opportunity of being heard against the cancellation of bail; and then pass an order in accordance with the law. 10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Matters Under Article 227 No.- 4469 Of 2016 Jamuna Prasad ...Petitioner Versus Thakur Ji Mahamaya Devi Virajman Temple & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Jainendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Civil Law - Decree - S.C.C. suit - Execution - Judgement debtor Ramdei died - Heirs and legal representatives - Substitution - Application - Order dated 05.03.2016 - Revision dismissed 27.05.2016 - Substitution application moved long after her death - Condonation of delay - Execution stood abated - Rules 3 and 4 Order XXII C.P.C. - Rule 12 Order XXII C.P.C. - Proceedings in execution of a decree - Not applicable - Execution proceedings would not abate - Heirs and legal representatives not brought on record within time - Filing of execution proceedings in time - Death of decree-holder/judgement debtor - No abatement - Remain pending - Brought on record at any time - No time limit - Proceedings would not abate - Remain