Partly allowed

Devi Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019A482/30500/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order issuing a non-bailable warrant. The Single Judge held that no case was made out for interference, the order was legal, and refused the main prayer. However, the N.B.W. was kept in abeyance for 30 days pending surrender. Once cash bail shall then be considered, subject to settled law.

What did the court decide?

The Non-Bailable Warrant issued in the matter shall remain in abeyance for a period of thirty days from today.

Devi Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30500 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Devi Singh And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Tiwari,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶6

The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 3.7.2019 issuing non-bailable warrant in case no. 676 of 2012 (Vinod Gupta Vs. Devi Singh and others), under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Agra. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶8

A perusal of the record reveals that the summoning order was passed after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant as well as the witnesses. Nonbailable warrant was issued when the applicants did not appear before the court concerned despite service of summon. Issuance of non-bailable warrant is within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶10

However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender and apply for bail within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of thirty days from today, effect and operation of the N.B.W. issued in the matter shall remain in abeyance.

¶11

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.

¶12

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.9.2019

¶14

Sachdeva

Devi Singh and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Singh and 2 Ors. 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

Ram Avtar Bhar and Others Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Shyam Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sayeed Khan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazim and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another