Disposed

Ram Surat Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2019A482/22699/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant, the court refused the prayer for quashal citing factual disputes but stayed the warrant for fifteen days, directing the applicant to surrender for bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Refusal to quash order and proceedings; stay of non-bailable warrant for 15 days pending surrender for bail application.

Ram Surat Yadav Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22699 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Surat Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Tripathi 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 impugned non bailable warrant order dated 29.5.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.368 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No.348 of 2016 (State Vs. Paras Nath and others), under Sections 147, 323, 325, 308, 504 IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, pending in the Court of VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicants 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

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case to quash the impugned order. The prayer to quash the same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶9

However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within fifteen days from today and apply 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶10

For a period of fifteen days from today, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

¶11

The present application stands disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 18.6.2019 Mini

Ram Surat Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Surat Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Rajesh Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Prakash @ Prem and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Durga Prasad Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another