Disposed

Vinod Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC29 May 2019A482/21524/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant due to the applicant's illness. The court allowed a conditional stay of coercive action for two weeks, directing the applicant to seek bail or recall of the warrant from the trial court within that period. If the applicant fails to appear, the trial will proceed normally.

What did the court decide?

Suspend coercive action on the non-bailable warrant for two weeks and direct the trial court to consider a bail or recall application expeditiously if filed within that period.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Up and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21524 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awdhesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By way of the instant application, the applicant has sought for quashment of the non-bailable warrant dated 21.07.2016, passed by court of 138 N.I. Act, Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1352/9 of 2017, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar (Gulsan Bhatiya vs. Vinod Kumar), pending before 138 N.I. Court, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during course of the trial, the applicant was suffering from illness, due to which he could not appear before the court concerned. In the meanwhile, non-bailable warrant has been issued against him. The applicant promises that he will appear and participate in the proceeding before the court below, if the one last opportunity is given to him.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has no objection provided the applicant appears before the court below.

¶9

Considered the submissions and perused the impugned order. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned in the instant application.

¶10

However, taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided in the fitness of things that in case the applicant moves an application for recall/bail before the court concerned within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed by the court below, expeditiously, if convenient, on the same day after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

¶11

For a period of two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant and effect and operation of the non-bailable warrant in question shall be kept in abeyance.

¶12

If the applicant does not appear before the court concerned within the stipulated period, the court below shall proceed further with the case in accordance with law.

¶13

With the above direction, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.5.2019

¶15

S Rawat

Vinod Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. State of Up 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

Jyoti Bhushan Vs Additional Civil Judge and Another

Vipin Kumar Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Usha Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Nasim and 18OTHERS Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ms. Shukla Wassan Vs State of U.P. and Another