Dismissed

Ravi and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2019A482/22548/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the applicant's petition seeking to set aside a non-bailable warrant issued for their absence. It held that the trial court correctly issued the warrant after a two-year absence, but allowed a 30-day grace period to appear for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. 30 days allowed to appear and apply for bail; no coercive action if they comply.

Ravi and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22548 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ravi And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.M. Mulla, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned N.B.W. order dated 09.03.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur in Case No. 61 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 121 of 2012 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Badgaon, District Saharanpur.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that accused applicants have got themselves bailed out after the cognizance was taken by the trial court in the present case. Since the applicants are labourers and had gone out of the district to earn livelihood, the local counsel could not inform them about the date of hearing, hence learned trial court has issued N.B.W. against them which is prayed to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.

¶9

I have seen the record and find that the applicants did not appear before the trial court for about two years, hence trial court has rightly issued the N.B.W. against the applicants as there was no option left to it but to issue N.B.W. against the applicants to procure their attendance.

¶10

In view of the above, I find that there is no ground to quash the N.B.W. issued against the applicants and the said prayer is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail then their bail application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the

¶12

application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.6.2019 A. Mandhani

Ravi and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Gitesh Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar Vs State of Up and 02 Other

Mohd. Sharif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Harijan @ Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another