Partly allowed

Gopal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2019A482/33909/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of non-bailable warrant and stay of proceedings, finding no infirmity. However, allowed a conditional grant: applicants may surrender and apply for bail within thirty days, during which N.B.W. remains in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed. Conditional relief granted allowing surrender and bail application within thirty days with non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for that period.

Gopal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33909 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Gopal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Pratap Rao,Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.1.2016 issuing non-bailable warrant in complaint case no. 505 of 2013 (Banarasi Vs. Gopal and others), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 IPC, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

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

¶7

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicants in the present matter.

¶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 :- 18.9.2019

¶14

Sachdeva

Gopal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Shaym Sunder Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramashankar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ritu Raj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avadhesh Samadhiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kumari Renu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Prabha and Another Vs State of Up and Another