Dismissed

Rahul @ Prince and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2018A482/31612/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged the issuance of non-bailable warrants via an S. 482 Cr.P.C. application. The court refused to quash the impugned orders finding no illegality or abuse of process but issued a protective direction requiring the lower court to consider bail within two weeks if the accused surrenders.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; Protective direction issued for bail consideration upon surrender within two weeks.

Rahul @ Prince and Anr. Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31612 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul @ Prince And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of order dated 17.5.2018, 22.6.2018 and 26.7.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge Court No.5, Hathras in G.S.T. No.43 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Manvendra @ Manu @ Peelu and others), P.S.- Hathras, DistrictHathras whereby non bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants.

¶6

Heard applicants' counsel as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The Court does not see any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order under challenge and also there seem to be no abuse of court's process. There is no good ground to interfere in the same, therefore, the prayer for quashing of the impugned orders is refused.

¶8

Applicants' counsel submits that as it is being desired by the accused to obtain bail after surrendering in the court below, a protective direction may be issued to the lower court to decide the proposed bail application.

¶9

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case after surrendering in the court below an application for bail is moved on behalf of the accused within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶10

In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.

¶11

It is made clear that if this order is not availed by the accused within stipulated period of time, no time extension application shall be entertained.

¶12

It is further clarified that for the present this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 11.9.2018 AK Pandey

Rahul @ Prince and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul @ Prince and Anr. v. State of U.P.

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

Nitin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Netram and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Brijesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 04 Others

Smt. Gayatri Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another