Disposed

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

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2018A482/43077/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding caste-based offences. It directed no coercive action for 60 days, expedited interim bail timelines, and mandated opportunity of hearing for the victim for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused; no coercive action for 60 days; expedited bail decided; opportunity of hearing mandated for regular bail.

Chandrabhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43077 of 2018 Applicant :- Chandrabhan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶3

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

¶4

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 256 of 2018 (State vs. Chandrabhan and others) including charge sheet dated 30.03.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 51/2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3(1) (Da) and 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Jakhaura, District - Lalitpur.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that in counter blast of F.I.R. lodged by applicant no. 1 Chandrabhan against Ram Singh and his family members, this F.I.R. has been lodged maliciously with false allegation only to harass the applicants. He further 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.

¶6

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

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

Accordingly, 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 applications and also pray for interim bail, their 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 4.12.2018 VG..

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabhan 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

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

Hausila Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another