Disposed

Tanvej Alam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2019A482/42565/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 CrPC application seeking to quash a non-bailable warrant and criminal proceedings, the court refused to quash the warrant immediately due to factual disputes requiring evidence appraisal. However, it granted a 30-day reprieve from the warrant and directed consideration of bail if the applicant surrenders.

What did the court decide?

Edit to quash order refused; non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for 30 days; bail to be considered if applicant surrenders.

Tanvej Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42565 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Tanvej Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, 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 Non-Bailable Warrant dated 30th September, 2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3014/9 of 2018 (State Vs. Haji Haroon & Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kairana, District-Shamli, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that after submission of the charge-sheet and passing the cognizance taking order, due to illness of applicants, they could not appear before the court below, hence the impugned non-bailable warrants have been issued against them.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicant 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 applicants 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

¶11

Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC ).

¶12

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

¶13

The present application stands disposed of.

¶14

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Sushil/-

Tanvej Alam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanvej Alam 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

Manoj Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Richa Sharma and Another Vs Principal Judge and Another

Santosh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Poonam Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Azad Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another