The single judge dismissed the application to quash the N.B.W. allowing the accused to seek bail, but granted immunity from coercive measures for 30 days to the applicant if he surrenders.
Petition to quash N.B.W. refused. Coercive action against applicant stayed for 30 days if he surrenders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5777 of 2018
Applicant :- Virendra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Srivastava,Ramesh Chandra Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order of N.B.W. dated 11.12.2017 in Criminal Case No. 1404 of 2017 (State Vs. Jaipal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 2017 under Section 3/4 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 Police Station Khajuriya, District Rampur, pending before learned Additional C.J.M., District Rampur.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that earlier proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed from the side of the three accused being No. 28639 of 2017 (Jaipal & two others Vs. State of U.P. & Another) whereon by this court's order dated 1.9.2017, liberty was granted of two months to appear before court to get themselves bailed out and till then no coercive measures were directed to be taken against them. Now plea is being taken that the accused applicant No.1 had a baby born on 14.08.2017 in District Panchmahal, Gujarat because of which, he could not surrender before the court to get himself bailed out in time. As regards accused applicant No.2, it is mentioned that he was working in district Udham Singh Nagar in the State of Uttarakhand in Deeplywood Company Ltd. The reason given by the applicant No.1 seems to have some weight while there is no substance found in respect of accused applicant No.2 as to why he was not appearing before the court concerned for getting himself bailed out.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
The prayer for quashing the N.B.W. against the accused applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant No.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his 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 applicant No.1. However, in case, the applicant No.1 does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.3.2018 A. Mandhani
2 issues framed by the court
Whether S. 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of N.B.W. against accused applicants should be dismissed.
Whether applicant No.1's technical inability to surrender due to childbirth warrants suspension of coercive action.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2004 (57) ALR 290Relied on¶10
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Virendra And Another
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
