Disposed

Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Chand Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2018A482/9405/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court directed the applicant to appear and surrender within 30 days to seek bail. Pending this, no coercive action will be initiated unless they fail to comply with the direction.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action for 30 days if applicants appear and surrender; order finally disposed of.

Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Chand Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9405 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Chand Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Sachan 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 deciding the bail application in Case Crime no. 0083 of 2018, u/s 147, 352, 427, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria.

¶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

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 22.3.2018 Dhirendra/

Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Chand Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Chand 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Basant Lal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ismail Vs State of Up and Another