Partly allowed

Shamshad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2019A482/32035/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused the applicant's petition to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings instituted against him. It granted a 30-day moratorium on coercive action contingent upon the applicant appearing and applying for bail, failing which coercive action would be initiated.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the summoning order refused. No coercive action against the applicant for a period of 30 days if he appears and applies for bail.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32035 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shamshad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 23.3.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi as well as the proceedings of Complaint Case No.4882 of 2018 (Afaq Vs. Shamshad), under Sections 419, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi.

¶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 purposes 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may 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 Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 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 aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 16.9.2019 Dev/-

Shamshad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshad 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

Anwarul Haq and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vipati and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakti Singh Vs State of Up and 6 Ors.

Vijay Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and Another