Disposed

Sunil Kumar Tiwari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2018A482/43072/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the Court refused to quash the order for issuing a bailable warrant and the entire criminal proceedings. However, the Court directed quick disposal of bail applications and barred coercive action for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash warrant and proceedings refused; bail to be decided on same day; no coercive action for 60 days.

Sunil Kumar Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43072 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Kant Rai,Tej Bhan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the order dated 04.07.2018 issuing bailable warrant against applicants passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Allahabad as well as entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1855/2015 (State vs. Sunil Tiwari and others) including charge sheet dated 19.07.2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 126/2015 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Koraon, District- Allahabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in impugned order passed by the courts below.

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as entire proceeding in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

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

¶12

In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in [2018 (2) ACR 2190] , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶13

For a period of 60 days from today or till applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 4.12.2018 VG..

Sunil Kumar Tiwari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Tiwari and 2 Others 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

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sundar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxmi Narain Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Chandrabhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hausila Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another