Disposed

Munish Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2019A482/27789/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application against dismissal of revision, the High Court held that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated. It dismissed the application intact but directed courts to expeditiously dispose of bail applications within 24 hours of custody under guidelines in Social Action Forum and exempted the applicants from coercive action for 60 days or until surrender.

What did the court decide?

Exemption from coercive action for 60 days or until surrender; direction to courts to dispose bail applications within 24 hours.

Munish Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27789 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Munish Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jeet Bahadur Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the applicants is not present to argue the case.

¶6

Heard learned A.G.A., as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.3.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 699 of 2015 (Munish Vs. State of U.P. and another) dismissing the revision against the order dated 11.7.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh. By the order dated 11.7.2014, applicants have been summoned for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶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.

¶9

All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Accordingly, I find, no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

¶11

However, it is directed that if applicants apply for bail, the same shall be disposed of on the same day, on which they are taken into custody as per the guidelines prescribed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1501 .

¶12

It is further provided that in case, the applicant No. 3 claim discharge through counsel under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the courts below, expeditiously by a speaking order.

¶13

Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no. 3.

¶14

For a period of 60 days from today or till the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 surrender and apply for bail, whichever, is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶15

This application stands disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 1.5.2019 Jaswant

Munish Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish Kumar and 2 Others 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

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mustaqeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Indrabhan Jain and 4 Others

Mangroo @ Hari Shanker Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhinav Chaturvedi @ Sonu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sita Ram Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another