Disposed

Anil Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 May 2018A227/3323/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a writ petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside impugned criminal orders. The court held no illegality existed. It directed that if petitioners surrender within 45 days, their bail application will be considered, with no coercive action in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No coercive action for 45 days if petitioners surrender and apply for bail.

Anil Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3323 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Shandilya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The present writ petition under Article 227 has been filed with the following reliefs:

¶6

"i). to set aside the order dated 07.03.2018 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Jhansi in Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2017 (Sunil Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and order dated 22.09.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, District Jhansi in Complaint Case No. 259 of 2016 (Har Prasad Vs. Anil Kumar and others) under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sakrar, District Jhansi.

¶7

ii). any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶8

iii). award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners."

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioners is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality in the orders dated 07.03.2018 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Jhansi in Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2017 (Sunil Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and order dated 22.09.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, District Jhansi in Complaint Case No. 259 of 2016 (Har Prasad Vs. Anil Kumar and others), respectively. Accordingly, the prayer made in the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is hereby rejected.

¶11

Lastly the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners undertake that the petitioners will appear

¶12

before the court below and participate in the said proceedings. He sought sometime to appear before the court below in the interest of justice.

¶13

However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the petitioners 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 judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶14

For a period of 45 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.5.2018 Prajapati

Anil Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anis Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sageer Mohd. @ Ashu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Javed and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Intekhab Akhtar Vs Union of India

Nitin Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.