Benefit Of Section 91 BNSS Available Only If Accused Voluntarily Appeared Before Court: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that the benefit of Section 91 of the BNSS (corresponding provision to Section 88 of the Cr.P.C.) is available only if the accused voluntarily appeared before the court, not when a Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued for their appearance.
The Court rejected the application filed by the accused seeking relief under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash the impugned order where the trial court rejected the application under Section 70 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 72 of the BNSS).
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania observed, “The benefit of Section 88 Cr.P.C./ Section 91 BNSS would only be available if the accused on his/her own volition appears before the court concerned, and in the instant case the benefit of Section 88 Cr.P.C./ Section 91 BNSS would not be available to the applicant as prior to moving the application in the said provision(s) the NonBailable Warrant was issued for the purposes of appearance of the applicant.”
Advocate S.P. Tiwari appeared for the applicant, while GA Digvijay Nath Dubey represented the opposite parties.
The accused had filed an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2024 (BNSS) for the Court to quash the impugned. The accused sought the Court’s direction to furnish bonds under Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to an FIR filed under Sections 323, 504, 506, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.
After the concerned court took cognizance of the charge sheet filed by the police, summons were issued to the accused. However, the accused did not appear before the court, leading to the issuance of a Bailable Warrant. When the accused continued to evade appearance, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued subsequently.
Despite being granted anticipatory bail, the accused did not appear before the trial court, leading to the cancellation of his bail. The order was affirmed by the Supreme Court in July, 2024.
The High Court noted, “It would be apt to indicate that at this stage that from the aforesaid it is apparent that Non-Bailable Warrant was issued before preferring the application(s), which have been rejected by the impugned order.”
The Lucknow Bench stated that the Trial Court rejected the accused’s application under Section 88 of the Cr.P.C./ Section 91 of the BNSS on the ground that the applicant was not present before the Trial Court and also that the applicant did not surrender himself to the jurisdiction of the concerned court.
The Court observed that the benefit of Section 91 BNSS (corresponding provision to Section 88 of the Cr.P.C.) would only be available if the accused on his/her own volition appears before the court and not when a Non-Bailable Warrant is issued for the purposes of appearance of the accused.
Consequently, the Court held that “no interference is required in the composite order dated 21.08.2024, impugned herein, whereby two application(s) i.e. application under Section 70 Cr.P.C./Section 72 BNSS and application under Section 88 Cr.P.C./Section 91 BNSS have been rejected.”
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the application.
Cause Title: Navneet Bhadauria v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:59199)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates S.P. Tiwari, Anuuj Taandon and Purnendu Chakravarty
Opposite Party: GA Digvijay Nath Dubey
