Dismissed

Sahab Singh and 4 Ors. v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2019A482/44161/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summoning order, finding no sufficient ground for interference as a prima facie offence was made out. However, the court directed suspension of coercive action for 15 days and directed the trial court to consider bail applications favorably upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action against applicants suspended for 15 days; Trial Court directed to consider bail applications favorably upon surrender within the stipulated period.

Sahab Singh and 4 Ors. Vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44161 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Sahab Singh And 4 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Swarn Lata Suman,Parmeshwar Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Swarn Lata Suman, learned Counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 24.01.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Complaint Case No.991 of 2018 (Shiv Lal versus Sahab Singh and others), under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras as well as subsequent proceeding thereof.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for applicants is that from the allegation of complaint and statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., no offence against applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Applicants have falsely been implicated in the case. They are innocent, there is no credible evidence and the entire proceedings are on account of enmity. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of her contention. Learned Counsel for applicant, after making some arguments seek direction that in case application fails a direction to the trial Court be issued to dispose of their bail applications as per settled law.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer.

¶9

It is stated that there are several documents which show that complaint has been filed maliciously but admitted that these documents were not before Magistrate at the time of passing impugned order. This Court, while considering correctness of order passed by Magistrate summoning accused, will examine only that material which was available before Magistrate when he passed order. Court is not obliged to examine any new material for the first time.

¶10

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 submission made at

¶11

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 the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) 2005 S.C.C. (Cr.) 283.

¶12

I do not see any good ground so as to justify interfere in the matter and prayer is refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that in case the applicants appear or surrender before the court below within 15 days from today and apply for bail, Trial Court is expected, while considering their bail, to bear in mind, established law by Hon'ble Apex Court and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (7) ADJ 151 .

¶14

For a period of 15 days from today or till surrender of applicants, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶15

In view thereof, application is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.12.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Sahab Singh and 4 Ors. v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahab Singh and 4 Ors. v. State of Up 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

Satya Prakash Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt. Neha Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Wamiq Baseer Nayeemi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naresh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anant Pandey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dambar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another