Allowed

Mohd. Javed v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2019A482/24467/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court refused to quash a Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the trial court, stating it was necessary for attendance. However, the court granted the applicant a 30-day window to appear and seek cancellation without coercive action; failure to appear would invite coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash was refused. The applicant is directed to appear within 30 days to seek cancellation of the NBW. No coercive action till then.

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

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24467 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Javed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shujauddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shujauddin, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.D. Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the NBW dated 13.5.2019 issued against the applicant by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Criminal Case No. 569 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2016 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506/34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur pending before the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that NBW has been issued against the applicant which needs to be quashed because he was out of State for doing private job, therefore, he has no knowledge about the NBW being issued against him.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the NBW issued against the applicant.

¶9

I do not find any ground to quash the NBW because the same has been issued by the trial court in order to procure the attendance of the applicant.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the NBW is refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears before the court below within 30 days from today and seeks cancellation of the same, then the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law and in case the same is not cancelled, the trial court may consider granting of bail to the accused in accordance with law . However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶12

Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid criminal case.

¶13

With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.7.2019 AU

Mohd. Javed v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Javed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharuf Khan Vs State of U.P.

Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Jagdish and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Satendra Narayan Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mahfooz Alam Vs State of U.P. and another

Smt. Savita Devi and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another