Disposed

Aman Yadav @ Kallu Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2018A482/33877/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash a summoning order, the Court refused quashal as the matter involves disputed facts. The Court granted interim protection directions based on a precedent regarding juvenile accused, allowing bail consideration within 45 days without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action for 45 days; direction to decide interim bail prayer on the same day if filed; regular bail to be decided after opportunity to victim.

Aman Yadav @ Kallu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33877 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Aman Yadav @ Kallu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Asthana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the summoning order dated 04.08.2018 passed by Additional Special Judge Court No. 8, Azamgarh in Case Crime No. 80/2018 (State Vs. Amany Yadav @ Kallu Yadav) under Section 354KA, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha) SC/ST Act, Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Pawai, District Azamgarh whereby applicant Aman Yadav @ Kallu Yadav has been summoned.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant contended that no offence is disclosed against applicant. Applicant is juvenile in conflict of law.

¶8

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Applicant may claim his juvenility before trial court which shall be decided after proper inquiry in accordance with law.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the summoning order in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicant is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.

¶12

Accordingly, 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 applicant files his bail application and also prays for interim bail, his prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day, and the regular bail shall be decided thereafter by affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim or his dependent as per the mandate of Section 15A(5) S.C./S.T. Act.

¶13

For a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant.

¶14

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Sharad/-

Aman Yadav @ Kallu Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Yadav @ Kallu Yadav 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

Bablu Vs State of U.P. and another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishnukesh @ Arju Dwivedi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Faizal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hallan Alias Man Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another