Disposed

Satendra v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2018A482/10915/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the non-bailable warrant at this stage due to factual disputes requiring evidence appraisal. However, directed that if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within 30 days, the prayer shall be considered in light of specific precedents.

What did the court decide?

Application for quash refused; non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for 30 days pending surrender and bail application.

Satendra Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10915 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Satendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- 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

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the Non Bailable Warrant dated 28.01.2018 in Case Crime No. 288 of 2017, under Sections-379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Mathura, pending before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mathura.

¶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.

¶8

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case to quash the impugned order. The prayer to quash the same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶9

However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶10

For a period of 30 days and no more, from today, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

¶11

The present application stands disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 4.4.2018 Lbm/-

Satendra v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Dilip Juneja Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Baburam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarla Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Badruddin Shamsi Vs State of U.P. and Another