Disposed

Pramod Verma and 13 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2019A482/35800/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising suo motu jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, refused to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case. While finding that disputes of fact preclude quashing at this stage, the Court granted the applicants a 30-day respite from coercive action to appear and apply for bail.

What did the court decide?

30-day respite from coercive action to appear and apply for bail; prayer for quashing refused.

Pramod Verma and 13 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35800 of 2019 Applicant :- Pramod Verma And 13 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adeel Ahmad Khan,Sanjay Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Sanjay Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶5

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 7.2.2010, containing its cognizance order taken by ACjM, Kasya Kushinagar in Case No. 2560 of 2010 (State v. Feku and others) arising out of Case Crime No.747A/2009, under section 147, 148, 336, 341, 427, IPC and under section 2/3 of Prevention of Public Property Damages Act and under section 7 of Crl. Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Kasya, District - Kushi Nagar as well as other entire proceeding of the said case, pending before the court of ACJM, Kasya, Kushinagar.

¶6

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶7

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 applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.PC. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283 .

¶8

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.

¶9

However, it is directed, that in case applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicants in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57)ALR 290, as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC). 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶10

With the above directions, present application is disposed off.

¶11

Order Date :- 26.9.2019 ssm

Pramod Verma and 13 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Verma and 13 Ors. 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

Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajmeri and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Vijendra Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanid Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Pappi Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Layak Singh Vs State of U.P.