Partly allowed

Vijay Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2019A482/33404/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that facts were disputed and required proof. However, it granted 30 days for the applicant to surrender for bail consideration, staying all coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashing; granted 30-day period to surrender for bail consideration with stay on coercive action.

Vijay Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33404 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing/stay the impugned charge sheet dated 22.10.2017 in Case No. 623 of 2018 (arising out of Case Crime No. 0232 of 2017), under sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 436, 307, 427 IPC & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Sungadh, District Pilibhit pending in the court of CJM, Pilibhit.

¶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 proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned 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

¶11

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.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 16.9.2019 Arti

Vijay Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Bahadur 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

Shamshad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakti Singh Vs State of Up and 6 Ors.