Partly allowed

Dinanath Bind v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019A482/27465/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the application to quash criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 420, 409 IPC and 147/148 E.C. Act, holding that disputed facts precluded adjudication at this stage. However, the Court directed the lower court to consider bail within 30 days pending surrender and stayed coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings refused. Applicant directed to surrender within 30 days for bail; coercive action stayed for this period.

Dinanath Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27465 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dinanath Bind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer seeking stay/quashing of the entire proceeding in pursuance of the charge sheet No. 162 of 2016 dated 23.5.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 11.6.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2016 under section 420,409 IPC and 3/7 of E.C. Act, Police Station Kapsethi, DistrictVaranasi pending the court of Judicial ACJM- Ist, Varanasi.

¶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 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 submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 .

¶9

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

¶10

However, it is directed, that in case applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). 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 above directions, present application is disposed off.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.9.2019 ssm

Dinanath Bind v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinanath Bind 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

Rampal Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mubarak Ansari Vs State of Up and Another

Central Bank of India Vs State of U.P.and Others

Sudama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Up and Another

Rajveer and 2 Ors. Vs State of Up and Another