Partly allowed

Ompal v. State of Up and Anr.

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2019A482/34371/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused the applicant's petition to quash orders passing non-bailable warrants. However, it granted a stay on coercive action for 30 days or until bail disposal, conditional upon the applicant's appearance.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the non-bailable warrant orders refused; coercive action stayed for 30 days conditional upon appearance or bail application.

Ompal Vs State of Up and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34371 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ompal Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra 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.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the nonbailable-warrant order dated 28.06.2019 and its subsequent earlier order dated 04.06.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Amroha in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Ompal) arising out Case Crime No. 484/2001, under section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Rajapur, District Amroha.

¶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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

Ompal v. State of Up and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ompal 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.

Ajeet Kabadi Vs State of Up and Anr.

Pappu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another