Disposed

sone lal and others v. state of up and others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2018A482/4935/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the applicant's prayer to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order, finding that an offence was made out. The Court directed that bail applications be disposed of expeditiously under Section 15(5) of the SC/ST Act and ordered no coercive action against applicants for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; directions for expeditious bail hearing and 30-day stay on coercive action granted.

sone lal and others Vs state of up and others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4935 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sone Lal And Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav,Vivekanand Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants in the court today, the same is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the Charge Sheet No. 51 of 2017 dated 12.09.2017 as well as the cognizance order dated 12.12.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi and the entire criminal proceeding of criminal case in Case No. 1040 of 2017 (State v. Sone Lal Kushwaha and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 234 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(2)(5)क and 3(1)(घ) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Charwa, District - Kaushambi.

¶9

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 applicant is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that the applicant nos. 2 and 3 - Smt. Tersi and Smt. Nisha Devi were not named in the F.I.R. Only on the basis of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been made accused in the present case.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding, impugned charge sheet as well as cognizance order

¶14

passed in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶15

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants are punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. Police has submitted charge sheet. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court / court concerned.

¶16

In view of order passed by this Court on 23.01.2018 in Application under Section 482 No. 43217 of 2017 (Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State), 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 15 A (5) S.C./S.T. Act.

¶17

For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants.

¶18

With the above directions, the instant application is finally disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 6.3.2018 I. Batabyal

sone lal and others v. state of up and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

sone lal and others v. state of up and others

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

Panna Lal Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Vineeta Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Raj Kishore Gaur Vs State of U.P.

ashish jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Akabar Vs State of U.P.