Disposed

Aniruddh Singh v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2019A482/23206/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the entire criminal proceedings and non-bailable warrant under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It directed that if the applicant surrenders within 45 days and applies for bail, his bail prayer will be considered.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings and N.B.W. refused; directions issued to consider bail plea if applicant surrenders within 45 days.

Aniruddh Singh Vs State of U.P. and another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23206 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Aniruddh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the non-bailable warrants order dated 02.01.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 93 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Aniruddh Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 531 of 2014, under Section- 135 of Electricity Act, 2003, Police StationAjeetmal, District- Auraiya, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, IInd, Auraiya .

¶8

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. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶9

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 .

¶10

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

¶11

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 45 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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 25.6.2019 Rohit

Aniruddh Singh v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniruddh Singh 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

Harveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aamir Rasadi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ritika Baranwal Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ajay Ram @ Ram Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Babu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bechan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another