Disposed

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2019A482/46781/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 as they involved disputed facts. However, it directed that bail be considered if the applicant surrenders within 45 days, and no coercive measures would be taken during that period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Bail considered if applicant surrenders within 45 days. No coercive measures for 45 days.

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46781 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 01.06.2019 in Case No.2284 of 2019 (State Vs. Sukhwant Singh), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No.364 of 2018, Police Station Sungarhi, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.

¶7

The contention of learned 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 purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶8

From a 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions 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 .

¶9

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶10

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 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 Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

For a period of 45 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶12

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Anand Sri./-

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Kumar 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

Israr and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Tiwari and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Kalpana @ Pinki and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheela Devi and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Hakeem Khan @ Nannhe Khan and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Anshul Anand and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another