Partly allowed

Sunil @ Sonu Pathak v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2019A482/17404/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the application to quash the charge sheet and various orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the issues involved disputes of fact. However, the Court granted a 30-day stay on coercive action, allowing the applicant to avail bail or recall warrant application within that period.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet and orders refused; coercive action stayed for 30 days to allow for bail or recall of warrant application.

Sunil @ Sonu Pathak Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17404 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sunil @ Sonu Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 19.07.2018, cognizance order dated 28.11.2018, Summoning order dated 28.11.2018, Bailable Warrant dated 28.01.2019 as well as non-bailable-warrant order dated 04.04.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Bareilly in Case No. 83 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 792/2017, under section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Bareilly.

¶7

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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

All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as

¶11

expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may 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. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 23.10.2019 Arti

Sunil @ Sonu Pathak v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil @ Sonu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chandra Kala and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sandeep and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Ram Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Others