Dismissed

Ajeet Kabadi v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2019A482/34369/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court refused the prayer to quash a non-bailable warrant order under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the matter involves disputed facts unsuitable for summary adjudication. Directions were issued to the applicant to file a bail application within 30 days, during which no coercive action would be taken.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing denied; directions given to consider bail application within 30 days; stay on coercive actions during this period.

Ajeet Kabadi Vs State of Up and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34369 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ajeet Kabadi Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal 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 the nonbailable-warrant order dated 14.11.2018 to 17.08.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, (Gangster Act) Agra in G.S.T. No. 160 of 2010 (State Vs. Pramod @ Prema and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 265 of 2009, under section 2/3 Gangster Act, Police Station Bah, District Agar.

¶7

The contention of the 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

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 order impugned is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant files an application for recalling of the non-bailable-warrant issued against him within 30 days from today, the said application may be considered and disposed as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law or in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and

¶11

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.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. Order Date :- 19.9.2019 Arti

Ajeet Kabadi v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Kabadi v. State of Up and Anr.

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

Bahadur Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh Vs State of Up and 14 Others

Mohd. Ilias and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nadeem Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ompal Vs State of Up and Anr.