Disposed

Balwant Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2018A482/35714/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused a petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order, holding that no non-cognizable offence was apparent. The Court directed the applicants to appear and apply for bail within 30 days, after which coercive action would be initiated if they failed to comply.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash refused; 30-day grace period granted for appearance and bail application; dire warning of coercive action.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35714 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Balwant Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.K.Srivastava,Virendra Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.K.Srivastava and Sri Virendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 22.3.2018 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra passed in Case No.3328 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra, pending before learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant no.1 is working as Platoon Commander in U.P. Police and posted at Agra and applicant no.2 is aged about 55 years and is the mother of the applicant no.1. It is further submitted that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 is a Government employee and applicant no.2 is the mother of applicant no.1 and they may be permitted to move discharge application through counsel.

¶8

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. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the aforesaid proceedings is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender

¶10

before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 19.11.2018 Dev/-

Balwant Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant Singh and Another 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

Lalaram Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Ankita Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 5 others

Kanti Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sandeep Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Sh. Sanjeev Narula Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samar Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others