Allowed

Rajmani v. Sarita Devi and 6 Ors.

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2018A227/3286/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court held it could not adjudicate disputed facts to determine if an offence was disclosed. The petitioner was directed to surrender within 45 days and apply for bail, which would then be considered in light of settled bail law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender within 45 days and apply for bail for consideration; application otherwise disposed.

Rajmani Vs Sarita Devi and 6 Ors. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3286 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajmani Respondent :- Sarita Devi And 6 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Viajy Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present Matters under Article 227 petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, direction and passing order to court below in Case No. 142 of 2017 (Rajmani Versus Sarita Devi and others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Azamgarh.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶9

The prayer of the applicant in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days and no more from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 6.6.2018 Prakhar

Rajmani v. Sarita Devi and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajmani v. Sarita Devi and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Usha Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhothai and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Najir Hasan and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and and 1 Ors.

Komal Mallah Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vinod Kumar @ Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.