Partly allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Jun 2019A482/22653/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused the application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as prima facie offence was made out. The court granted temporary relief allowing the applicant 30 days to appear and seek bail without coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Discharge refused; two months' respite from coercive action provided subject to surrender and bail application.

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

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22653 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge dated 23.08.2018, under Sections 332/353 I.P.C., P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad (arising out of Case Crime No.574 of 2018) as well as cognizance order dated 15.02.2019 taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Firozabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant. However, in case, applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 17.6.2019 R./

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lavkush Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kuldeep Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jyotsana Nigam Vs State of Up and Another

Umesh Chandra @ Badkan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kuwarpal @ Kumarpal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another