Disposed

Anil Kumar Rajbhar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2019A482/31094/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under section 482 CrPC seeking stay or quashing of bailable warrants and criminal proceedings, the court refused the prayer for quashing as the prosecution did not disclose no offence. However, the court granted a 30-day reprieve from coercive action if the applicants surrender or apply for bail, upon which the bail prayer may be reconsidered.

What did the court decide?

Not guilty of an offence established; coercive action stayed for 30 days conditional on surrender or bail application.

Anil Kumar Rajbhar and Another Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31094 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Rajbhar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Keshri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with prayer seeking stay/quashing of the Bailable Warrants dated 13.5.2019 issued against the applicants along with the charge sheet No.01 of 2017 dated 11.3.2018 and cognizance dated 25.2.2019 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case (State v. Anil Kumar Rajbhar and another) in Case Crime No. 559 of 2017, under sections 420,406,504,506 IPC and Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station- Rohania, District- Varanasi, pending before the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, DistrictVaranasi.

¶7

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 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 applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed question 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 as well as bailable warrant order pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the bailable warrant issued against them within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicants 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).

¶11

For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of the application for

¶12

grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶13

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶14

With the above directions, present application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.8.2019 ssm

Anil Kumar Rajbhar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Rajbhar and Another 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

Anurag Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Chandan Bose Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Tufail and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sartaj Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Goel and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagesh Mittal Vs State of U.P. and Another