Partly allowed

Gaya Prasad and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2018A482/32849/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court considered an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a process and N.B.W. issued for non-compliance with a prior bail order. The court dismissed the quashing prayer but directed hearing of bail applications within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; directed that bail application be heard within two weeks.

Gaya Prasad and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32849 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Gaya Prasad And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA and have taken through the record.

¶6

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.8.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Etawah whereby proceedings under sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicants in Case Crime No. 10 of 2015 under sections 452/147/323/504/506 IPC read with section 3 (1) (10) of S.C. & S.T.Act Police Station Civil Lines, District Etawah.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have already filed a Criminal Misc. Application no.2122 of 2016 (Gaya Prasad and six others versus State of U.P. and another) before another Bench and Hon'ble Bench was pleased to dispose of the said petition with a direction to appear and surrender before the court below within thirty days for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. The applicants could not comply with the earlier order of this Court on account of unavoidable reasons. The applicants bow down before this Court praying for indulgence. The court below has taken very drastic view against the applicants by issuing the process under sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. and also issuing the non-bailable warrant. The applicants file for remission by this Court and seek suitable direction protecting their interest.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA contended that the investigation was done in a fair and impartial manner and the investigating agency collected credible and clinching material on the basis of which charge sheet was submitted and the applicants had ventilated their grievance by means of aforesaid petition which was finally disposed of protecting the interest of the applicants. The applicants have not complied with the earlier order dated 27.1.2016 passed by another Bench and after lapse of considerable spell of time , when the court below has taken stringent steps by issuing non-bailable warrant as well as process under sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. they have approached before this Court with an oblique design of circumventing the earlier order dated 27.1.2016 which is not permissible under law. The applicants do not appear to have bonafide track of invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court rather it is a subterfuge to secure favourable order misusing the process of law.

¶9

Having considered rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing the order dated 16.8.2018 and the consequential proceedings in the aforesaid case in exercise of its inherent powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶10

However, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case , it is directed that in case applicants appear before the court concerned in the aforesaid case within two weeks and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law. In case of any aberration on the part of the applicants, the court below shall be at liberty to take coercive steps against them.

¶11

Order Date :- 4.10.2018 Naim

Gaya Prasad and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaya Prasad and 2 Ors. 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

Babban @ Babloo and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Verma Vs State of U.P.

Shalu Rathor Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Firoz Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Sushil and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Parihar Vs State of U.P. and Another