Disposed

Meena Devi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2019A482/5049/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought to quash the charge sheet and entire criminal proceedings. The court refused the prayer to quash the proceedings, observing no infirmity in the order. However, the court observed that in case applicants surrender and apply for bail within two months, it shall be considered per settled law, during which no coercive action shall be

What did the court decide?

Application refused; no coercive action to be taken for two months if applicants surrender and apply for bail within that period.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5049 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Meena Devi And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 7.2.2019.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary corrections in the memo of application.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 27.7.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 352 of 2016 (State Vs. Guddu @ Ramesh) arising out of Case Crime No. 286 of 2016, under Section 363 IPC, Police Station Nichaul, District Maharajganj, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Maharajganj and to stay the entire proceeding of the case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that impugned order passed is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without evidence.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed and submitted that the impugned order is passed after considering whole evidence on record and is just and legal.

¶12

From the perusal of record, it transpires that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken against the applicants.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶14

However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender and apply for bail within two months from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of two months from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶15

It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants to surrender before the court concerned.

¶16

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of finally.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.2.2019 A. Singh

Meena Devi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Devi and Anr. 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

Mirul Hassan and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Harikishan @ Harikrishna Vs State of U.P.

Satya Kumar Mishra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandan Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Lalaram and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another