Allowed

Desh Raj v. State of U.P. Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2019A482/25405/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash proceedings in a cheating and forgery case. The court refused to quash the proceedings as disputed facts could not be adjudicated. However, it directed that the applicant must surrender within 30 days to seek bail; otherwise, coercive action would be taken.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quash operation refused; applicant granted 30 days to surrender for bail consideration; coercive action barred during this period.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25405 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Desh Raj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing/stay the entire proceedings of Case No. 6960 of 2009 (State Vs. Desh Raj) arising out of Case Crime No. 482-I of 2007, under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti.

¶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 purposes of 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. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the 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 off. Order Date :- 5.7.2019 Arti

Desh Raj v. State of U.P. Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Desh Raj v. State of U.P. 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

Badrool Hasan and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Parasnath Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 others

Vimlesh Chandra Vs State of Up and Another

Barkat Ali and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Laxmi Narain Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Aamir @ Tuiya Vs State of U.P. and Anr.