Dismissed

Umashankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 May 2019A482/21691/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash a non-bailable warrant issued by a lower court as it needed the trial record to determine the applicant's knowledge of proceedings. The bench directed bail to be decided same-day and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the N.B.W. order refused. Directions for immediate consideration of bail and temporary stay on coercive action for 60 days.

Umashankar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21691 of 2019

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 24.10.2016 issuing non bailable warrant passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Agra in Complaint Case No. 258 of 2013 (Chokhe Lal Vs. Umashankar) under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Etmauddaula, District Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was not aware about the proceedings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, applicant could not appear before the Trial Court and impugned order issuing non bailable warrant has been passed.

¶8

Whether proceedings of the Trial Court was known to the applicant or not, cannot be decided by this Court without perusal of record of lower court. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the impugned order passed in the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, none of the aforesaid offences against applicant 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.

¶11

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 applicant file his 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.

¶12

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶13

With the above directions, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Jaswant

Umashankar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umashankar 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

Madan Baghel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ranjana Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nandu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hardeo and 8 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. and Another