Partly allowed

Ashish Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2018A482/43228/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of a chargesheet filed under the IPC and SC/ST Act, the court dismissed the plea finding sufficient evidence for a chargesheet but granted a conditional 30-day stalemate and directed surrender for bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of chargesheet refused; coercive action stayed for 30 days if applicants surrender for bail.

Ashish Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43228 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Yadav & 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking quashing of charge-sheet dated 28.12.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 38 of 2017 ( State of U.P. Vs. Ashish Kumar and others) arsing out of Case Crime No. 1264 of 2016 under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar, pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.3 District Kushinagar.

¶6

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated with a view to harassing them by the complainant side. The entire version of the prosecution is concocted, false and frivolous. They have been falsely implicated due to village party-bandi. The investigating Officer has not investigated the case properly and yet has submitted the charge-sheet.

¶7

A perusal of the record does not show that there was no sufficient evidence available on record to file charge-sheet against the accused applicants under the aforesaid Sections. At this stage, the Court does not find any merit in the argument that the case is false and frivolous. The application deserves to be dismissed.

¶8

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

¶9

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from the day of passing of this order 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

¶10

aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.1.2018 A. Mandhani

Ashish Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Snt. Jehra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ranjana Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayazuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rustam Ansari and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.