Disposed

Billu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2019A482/41183/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash a non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant, noting that quashing was inappropriate as it involved factual disputes and evidence appraisal. Instead, the Court ordered the warrant be kept in abeyance for 30 days and directed the applicant to surrender to avail bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

The non-bailable warrant was kept in abeyance for 30 days; the applicant was directed to surrender and apply for bail.

Billu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41183 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Billu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. S.M. Faraz, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order of Non-Bailable Warrant dated 16th September, 2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 2016 (State Vs. Sadiq @ Langda & Others), arising out of Case crime No. 7 of 2015, under Sections 307, 428 and 429 I.P.C., Police Station-Gangoh, DistrictSaharanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after submission of the charge-sheet and passing of the cognizance taking order, due to livelihood, he went to Sonipat, therefore, he could not appear before the court below, hence the impugned non-bailable warrant has been issued against him.

¶8

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

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case to quash the impugned order. The prayer to quash the same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶10

However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall 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 in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC ).

¶11

For a period of 30 days from today, the bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

¶12

The present application stands disposed of.

¶13

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 3.12.2019

¶15

Sushil/-

Billu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Billu 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

Ram Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Vaid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omendra Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Santo @ Santo Devi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.