Dismissed

Atal Bajpai and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 May 2019A482/18105/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings. While noting no offence was made out to the extent of warranting imprisonment, it directed bail applications be decided same-day/interim bail immediately and barred coercive action for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Bail to be decided on same day. No coercive action for 60 days.

Atal Bajpai and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18105 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Atal Bajpai And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 26.11.2018 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No.3662 of 2018 (Amar Srivastava Vs. Atal Bajpai and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 356, 379 IPC, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that from the material brought on the record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. The present prosecution launched against the applicants is wholly mala fide as such, the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

¶8

Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶9

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.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶11

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicants 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 others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190 , it is directed that in case the

¶13

applicants file their bail application, 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 prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day.

¶14

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicants surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

With the above directions, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of . Order Date :- 7.5.2019/AKT

Atal Bajpai and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atal Bajpai 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

Vijay Pathak 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

Smt. Dhupa Devi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhan Singh Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Jagannath Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another