Allowed

Ajmeri and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2019A482/11783/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to quash prosecution proceedings under NDPS Act and a summoning order, as the application raised disputed questions of fact. However, the Court granted a marked direction for bail consideration if applicants surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Summary refused; direction given to consider bail if applicants surrender within 30 days; otherwise coercive action to be taken.

Ajmeri and Another Vs State of Up and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11783 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ajmeri And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shubham

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding of Sessions Trial No.420 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.944 of 2018, State Vs. Noorjahan & Others, under section 18/21 N.D.P.S.Act, Police Station Tronika City, District Ghaziabad as well as summoning order dated 21.12.2018 and charge sheet No.1 of 2018., pending in the Court of Addl. District & Sessions judge, Court no.3, Ghaziabad.

¶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 purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶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. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, 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.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case as well as summoning order is refused.

¶10

However, it is directed that in case 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

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 above directions, present application is disposed off.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.9.2019

¶14

Ajmeri and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmeri and Another v. State of Up 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

Paratap Agarval Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Shanker Pandey @ Mikkoo Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajnish Pandey @ Ajay Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ajmeri and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Vs State of Up and 2 Ors.