Disposed

S.P. Ratra v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2018A482/4233/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court did not quash the non-bailable warrant but directed the applicant to appear before the trial court within 30 days to apply for bail. Coercive action was stayed during this period, contingent on the applicant's cooperation and a fresh bail application.

What did the court decide?

Directed to appear before the trial court within 30 days to apply for bail; coercive action stayed pending such appearance and application.

S.P. Ratra Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4233 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- S.P. Ratra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ishan Deo Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the NonBailable- Warrant orders dated 22.02.2017 and 16.03.2017 passed by Session Judge, Badaun in S.T. No.8098 of 1995, State vs. S.P. Ratra, arising out of Case crime No.293 of 1993, under Section 304 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Badaun.

¶7

Crux contention raised before this Court is confined to the extent initially the applicant was involved in this case in the year 1993 and at that point of time the applicant was serving as Assistant Excise Commissioner and was also holding additional charge of District- Shahjahanpur where he discharged his official duties on the post of District Excise Officer/Assistant Excise Commissioner. He was admitted on bail by the court concerned and thereafter the applicant being employed in the service of Utter Pradesh Government retired in September, 1999 and thereafter, he went to his parental home in District- Rampur. In the meanwhile, discharge application was also moved by the applicant, which- discharge application was rejected against him. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Criminal Revision was

¶8

preferred, but due to some official inadvertence, the order passed by this Court could not be uploaded and in the meanwhile, after final hearing of the revision, the revision was dismissed. Thereafter, applicant being an old person became busy in the affairs of the family and he was not informed about the order of rejection of his criminal revision passed by this Court and the court below after coming to know about the rejection of the revision forfeited bail bonds of the applicant and issued non- bailable warrant.

¶9

Specific prayer has been made that the applicant have neither deliberately avoided to attend the court below nor was there any intention to occasion delay in the trial. However, he made promise, as has been extended on behalf of the applicant, that as a measure of last chance, he may be permitted to appear/surrender before the court below as he is ready to give an undertaking that he will cooperate with the proceeding and will always appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶10

Learned AGA has supported the proceedings of the lower court and submitted that there is no good ground for quashment of the proceedings. He adds that court below has rightly issued the non- bailable warrant against the applicant, but he conceded that if, applicant makes promise to surrender before the court below within the stipulated period, then Court may give some time for his surrendering before the court below.

¶11

In view of above particular facts and

¶12

circumstances of the case, As a measure of last opportunity, applicant is directed to appear before the court concerned within a period of 30 days from today and apply for bail/recall of the non- bailable warrant, the same shall be heard and disposed of by the courts below in view of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21679 of 2014-Munawwar and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and another .

¶13

Till the period of 30 days from today no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. It is made clear that in case no such application is moved within the time prescribed, the trial court would be at liberty to proceed further with the case in accordance with law.

¶14

It is made clear that in case the applicant is willing to co-operate with the on-going proceedings, trial court is expected conclude his trial without incurring any further delay. With the above directions/observations, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.2.2018 Raj

S.P. Ratra v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P. Ratra 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

Balla and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ganesh Vs State

Santosh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay @ Saneev Kumar and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Pal and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Amit Sisaudiya Vs State of U.P. and Another