Disposed

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

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2018CRLR/238/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenging an order under Section 306 IPC was dismissed as the court could not appraise disputed facts at this stage. However, the court directed that if the applicants surrender for bail within 30 days, their application will be considered based on settled law. The petition was finally disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with direction to consider bail application if applicants surrender within 30 days.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 238 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Mumtaz And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Irshad Husain,Ankur Tondon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 25.11.2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffar Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 1089 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 668 of 2015, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station- Bhopa, DistrictMuzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶8

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 at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. 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.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

With the aforesaid directions, this criminal revision is finally disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 3.7.2018 Abhilash

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaz 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Parmatma Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratap Chanadra Verma and another Vs State of U.P. and another

Ravi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopi Nath Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Kumar Rajabat Vs State of U.P. and Anr.