Disposed

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2019A482/20647/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused to quash the summoning order under Section 319 CrPC under Section 482 CrPC, finding a prima facie case despite arguments regarding distance and lack of specific role, while directing expeditious disposal of the pending bail application if applicant surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application refused; surveillance of coercive action directed for 30 days if applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20647 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order daed 19.10.2016 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Case No. 2938 of 2014 (Ram Kishun Vs. Vivek Kumar and others), under Sections 319 Cr.P.C. by which present applicant as well as order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 226 of 2016 (Arvind Kumar Vs. Ram Kishun and another) by which the revision was rejected and order passed by the Magistrate was confirmed. Further prayer has been made to stay the operation and effect of the aforesaid orders.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was named in the complaint but no summoning order was passed against the applicant. In the present matter after recording the statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C. application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant to summon the applicant also to face the trial. Trial Court vide order dtd 19.10.2016 summoned the applicant. Criminal revision was filed before the Sessions Judge concerned which was also dismissed. Referring to the contents of the complaint, statement of the witnesses recorded on the complaint as well as statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C. it was next contended that distance between the place of occurrence and house of the applicant is about 40 kms. It appears improabable and unbelievable that the applicant will be present on the place of occurrence to commit the present offence after covering such distance. It is also argued that no speciifc role has been assigned to the applicant. Complaint was filed on the behest of counsel belonging to the village of the applicant with whom enmity is going on.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that applicant has been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C.. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. No illegality or infirmity found in the impugned order passed by the courts below. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that a direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicant.

¶12

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicant surrenders before the court below

¶13

and applies for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicant. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicant for surrender before the court concerned.

¶14

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 2.8.2019

¶15

Sachdeva

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Solanki and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Shoyeb Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rehan Ahmad and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyaveer Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Satish Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another