Disposed

Hari Ram and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2018A482/11755/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application seeking quashing of a summoning order and stay of further proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court refused to quash but directed a 90-day stay on coercive action and expedited disposal of bail applications.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; 90-day stay on coercive action; bail to be considered on the same day.

Hari Ram and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11755 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Hari Ram And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijaya Shankar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vidya Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 27.02.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 3759 of 2016 (Ram Bharosey v. Hari Ram and others) under Sections 147, 323, 452, 506 IPC, Police Station - Cantt., District - Bareilly and to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicant is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in passing impugned order by the trial court.

¶9

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 applicants.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the summoning order and to stay the further proceedings in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. Police has submitted charge sheet. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court / court concerned.

¶12

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State) , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall

¶13

be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶14

For a period of 90 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.

¶15

With the above directions, the instant application is finally disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 10.4.2018 I. Batabyal

Hari Ram and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram and 6 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Raj Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Yogendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sujan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another