Km. Shabana and Another v. State of Up and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
In Smt. Guddo Vs. Smt. Akhtar, the High Court allocated the quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to the trial court instead of disposing of it directly, provided the applicants filed a bail application within three weeks.
What did the court decide?
A three-week period was granted for the applicants to move for bail before the trial court without coercive action.
What the court decided
Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19369 of 2019
Applicant :- Km. Shabana And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the recordd.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned N.B.W. order dated 3.5.2019 and the consequent proceeding in lieu thereof being Case No. 1038/2018, Smt. Guddo Vs. Smt. Akhtar and others, under Sections 420, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Govind Nagar, Mathura.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants wish to move bail application before the trial court and relinquishes the prayer for quashment.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection.
However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the applicants appear before the court concerned within three weeks from today and move application for bail/recall of the N.B.W., the same shall be considered and disposed of by the court below, if convenient, on the same day.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to quash the non-bailable warrant issued in the underlying criminal case.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Km. Shabana And Another
- respondent
State Of Up And Another
Coram
Arvind Kumar Mishra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/19369/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court