Dismissed

Ibraheem and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2018A482/9772/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused the application to quash the summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as no offence was clearly non-existent. However, directing that bail applications be decided on the same day and prohibiting coercive action for 60 days where charges do not attract imprisonment exceeding seven years.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the summoning order and entire proceeding was refused. Coercive action against the applicants was restrained for 60 days. Bail applications must be decided on the same day of f

Ibraheem and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9772 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Ibraheem And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arpit Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 26.11.2014 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sahaswan and entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 262 of 2014 (Ismail vs. Ibrahim and others), under Sections 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Sahaswan, DistrictBudaun.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as entire proceeding in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.

¶12

In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in [2018 (2) ACR 2190] , it is directed that in case the applicants file their bail application, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided on the same day. If for any reason it is not possible to decide the regular bail application on the same day, then prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶13

For a period of 60 days from today or till applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶14

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 29.11.2018 VG..

Ibraheem and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibraheem and 3 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

Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajneesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another