Dismissed

Dileep Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2018A227/7637/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Additional Sessions' order rejecting his application to take cognizance under the SC/ST Act. Court refused to set aside the order due to the police report not being filed, but directed expedited hearing of his pending bail application with opportunity for victim hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petition refused; direction for expedited consideration of petitioner's bail application including interim bail on same day.

Dileep Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7637 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dileep Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 25.09.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge - II/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad in Misc. Surrender Application No. 59 of 2018 in Case Crime No. 355 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Nawabganj, District - Allahabad, whereby the application of petitioner to take cognizance in proper Section was rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after investigation, police has not submitted charge sheet. Although the role of causing fire arm injury is assigned to petitioner but as per medical report injured Nanhe Pasi has sustained no fire arm injury and offence under Section 307 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act is not made out against petitioner. He further contended that all other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by the trial court.

¶8

From perusal of the record, it reveals that police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has not been submitted. As such there was no stage for the trial court to take cognizance without submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Moreover, the application of petitioner to take cognizance has not been disposed of by the trial court.

¶9

In view of the above, the prayer to set aside the impugned order in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, it is directed that in case the petitioner files his bail application and also prays for interim bail, his prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day, and the regular bail shall be decided thereafter by affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim or his/her dependent as per the mandate of Section 15 A (5) S.C./S.T. Act.

¶11

With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.10.2018 VG..

Dileep Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Patel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Prem Shankar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Billa Devi 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohtash Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Uday Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lokesh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.