Disposed

Smt. Anita v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2018A482/11173/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 420, 406, and 506 IPC, holding that the prayer involved factual disputes requiring evidence appraisal. However, directing a 30-day period for the applicant to surrender and seek bail, the court kept the non-bailable warrant in abeyance during this timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail to be considered if applicant surrenders and applies within 30 days; non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for 30 days.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11173 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Anita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh 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 proceeding of Criminal Case No. 12876 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 451 of 2014, under Sections- 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main accused in the aforesaid case has already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that non bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant. 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

Learned AGA for the State has pointed out that earlier the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28168 of 2016 moved by the present applicant has been entertained and this Court had granted interim protection vide order dated 16.09.2016.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

The present application stands disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 5.4.2018 Lbm/-

Smt. Anita v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anita 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarla Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Teekam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Baburam Bharti and 3 Ors. Vs State Ofu.P. and Another