The Court granted an interim protection against coercive measures for 30 days to the applicant who undertook to surrender and face trial. Bail applications will be considered on merits in light of Supreme Court precedents upon surrender.
No coercive measures to be taken against the applicant for 30 days from the date of order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47219 of 2018
Applicant :- Kedar Chaube Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
"47. In view of the above we answer the questions referred to the Full Bench as follows:
(1) Even if cognizable offence is disclosed, in the FIR or complaint the arrest of the accused is not a must, rather the police officer should be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 Cr LJ 1981 before deciding whether to make an arrest or not.
(2) The High Court should ordinarily not direct any Subordinate Court to decide the bail application the same day, as that would be interfering with the judicial discretion of the Court hearing the bail application. However, as stated above, when the bail application is under Section 437 Cr.P.C. ordinarily the Magistrate should himself decide the bail application the same day, and if he decides in a rare and exceptional case not to decide it on the same day, he must record his reasons in writing. As regards the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. it is in the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge considering the facts and circumstances whether to decide the bail application the same day or not, and it is also in his discretion to grant interim bail the same day subject to the final decision on the bail application later.
(3) The decision in Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P. (supra) is incorrect and is substituted accordingly by this judgment."
(emphasis added)
"We fully agree with the view of the High in Amaravati's case (supra), and we direct that the said decision be followed by all Courts in U.P. in letter and spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in U.P. In appropriate cases interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a person's reputation, as held by this Court in Joginder Kumar's case (supra). Also, arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether to arrest or not the police officer must be guided and act according to the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar's case (supra).
Since, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, and on the facts of this case, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for quashing the first information report. The Appeal is dismissed, However, the appellant is granted time to appear before the trial Court on or before 15th April, 2009 and to file an application for bail. If such an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law, and if it so deems fit, grant interim bail to the appellant pending the final disposal of his bail application.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court who will circulate it to all Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and send copies to all District Judges in the State."
(emphasis added)
Order Date :- 4.1.2019 IrfanUddin
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant an undertaking of no coercive measures for 30 days to the applicant who intends to surrender.
How the bail application should be considered when the applicant surrenders within 30 days.
Whether interim bail may be granted pending the final disposal of the bail application under settled principles.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶6
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶6
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P.Distinguished¶7
Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P., 1995 (32) ACC 375
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.Relied on¶8
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 Cr LJ 1981
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kedar Chaube
State Of U.P.
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
