Partly allowed

Vijay Pathak v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 May 2019A482/12976/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the application to quash orders from the trial court issuing a non-bailable warrant. Directions were issued to dispose of any bail application within a day or grant interim bail on the same day, and no coercive measures were to be taken for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash orders dismissed. Bail application to be decided on same day; interim bail decided on same day if delay occurs. No coercive measures for 30 days or until surrender.

Vijay Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12976 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.S. Sharma,R.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the orders dated 23.01.2016, 11.09.2017 and 22.02.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 904 of 2011, present Case No. being 10221 of 2017 (Radha Raman v. Vijay Pathak and others), under Section 406 of IPC. Vide order dated 22.02.2019, non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants.

¶7

As per provision of Section 244 of the Code, even in the case of death of complainant, his legal heir(s) may produce all the evidences in support of the prosecution. The discharge application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 11.09.2017. Accordingly, the applicant was aware of the proceedings of the trial court. In such a case, there was no option before the learned Magistrate except to pass order issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant.

¶8

Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the court below.

¶9

In view of above, the prayer for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.01.2016, 11.09.2017 and 22.02.2019 in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not surrendered till now.

¶11

None of the aforesaid offences alleged against applicant is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.

¶12

In view of order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Sakeena and another v. State of U.P. and Another reported in

¶13

2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the applicant files his bail application, his 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 his prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶14

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be adopted against him.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.5.2019 I. Batabyal

Vijay Pathak v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Pathak 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

Mohd. Kumail Akhtar Khan Vs State of U.P. and 14 Others

Harendra Singh Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Adneem Kumari Vs State of Up and Another

Rinku@Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Ahmad and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another