Disposed

Amzad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2018CRLRD/58/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the order summoning the revisionist, noting factual disputes prevent such relief. However, directing that the non-bailable warrant be kept in abeyance for 30 days to allow the petitioners to surrender and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of summon order refused; non-bailable warrant to be kept in abeyance for 30 days pending surrender and bail application.

Amzad and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 58 of 2018 Revisionist :- Amzad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

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

¶4

The present revision has been filed against the order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 890 of 2015 (State Vs. Kallan and others), under Sections 147, 148, 452, 307 read with 149, 323 read with 149 and 325 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut, by which the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶5

Perusal of the order does indicate that sufficient evidence has been received against the revisionist, such that may lead strong satisfaction for him to be summoned at this stage. Such satisfaction also appears to have been recorded.

¶6

However, in view of the facts that non-bailable warrant appears to have been issued against the revisionist during pendency of the present revision.

¶7

Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case to quash the impugned order. The prayer to quash the same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionist involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶8

However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the revisionist appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his 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.

¶9

For a period of 30 days and no more, from today, the nonbailable warrant issued against the revisionist shall be kept in abeyance.

¶10

The present revision stands disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 20.7.2018 VKG

Amzad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amzad and Another 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

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

Rajesh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shyam Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prince @ Rajnish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Saraswat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramjanam Singh Vs State of U.P.