Dismissed

Mukesh Pal and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2018A482/8690/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the chargesheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that facts are disputed. It directed that no coercive action be taken for 30 days if applicants surrender and apply for bail, after which bail would be decided per settled law.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail to be considered if applicants surrender and apply within 30 days; no coercive action during this period.

Mukesh Pal and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8690 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Pal And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the chargesheet dated 27.5.2017 in Case no. 450 of 2017 (State vs. Chhotu @ Om Shankar and others) arising out of case crime no. 62 of 2017, u/s 308 IPC, P.S. Pipri, District Kaushambi.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are 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.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. Submitted that 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. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants relate to disputed question of facts, 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.

¶9

The submissions made by learned A.G.A. have force.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the chargesheet is refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall 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.

¶12

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for 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 aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 19.3.2018 Dhirendra/

Mukesh Pal and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Pal and 2 Ors. 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

Raju Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jalalu Alias Jalaluddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mayank Vs State of U.P. and another

Pradeep and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Deepak Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Ors.