The Court refused to quash the NBW and proceedings in a POCSO/FIPC case, noting factual disputes. However, directing surrender within three weeks for bail consideration, the issued NBW is kept in abeyance.
Prayer for quashing refused; NBW kept in abeyance for 3 weeks; direction to surrender for bail consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28039 of 2019
Applicant :- Azmuddin And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Mohan Tripathi
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Krishna Mohan Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the NBW dated 02.07.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 99 of 2018 (Gule Askar Vs. Azmuddin and others), under Sections- 376, 420, 467, 468, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Swar, District- Rampur, pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Rampur.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants 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.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case to quash the impugned order. The prayer to quash the same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their 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 Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of three weeks from today, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants shall be kept in abeyance.
The present application stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Noman
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the NBW dated 02.07.2019 and the proceedings in Criminal Misc. Case No. 99 of 2018 under Sections 376, 420, 467, 468, 506 IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether to keep the Non-Bailable Warrant in abeyance pending application for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Azmuddin and 4 Others
State of Up
Rajiv Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
