Dismissed

Kallu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2018A482/7436/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court refused to quash the non-bailable warrant order despite malafide intention claims. The court directed that if the applicant applies for warrant recall or surrenders for bail within 30 days, the matter will be considered. No coercive action is permitted during this period if the applicant complies.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of non-bailable warrant refused. Coercive action stayed for 30 days if application is filed or applicant surrenders.

Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7436 of 2018 Applicant :- Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶2

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the nonbailable-warrant order dated 18.12.2017 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Farrukhabad, in SST No.28 of 2017, (State Vs. Ankit Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.204 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Maudarwaja District Farrukhabad.

¶3

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶4

All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶5

The prayer for quashing the non bailable warrant order is refused.

¶6

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application shall be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant 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.

¶7

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. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶8

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

¶9

Order Date :- 7.3.2018 Hasnain

Kallu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Ramhari Vs State of U.P. and another

Phirasat @ Kaluwa Vs State of U.P. and another

Murshad Vs State of U.P. and another

Bhola Vs State of Up

Noori@ Noor Hasan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Chandrika Yadav AND10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.