Disposed

Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2019CRLP/32818/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In response to a correction application admitting a wrong order was transcribed, the court quashed the erroneous order and passed fresh directions. The court directed police to comply with bail provisions if internal lawers advise the arrested offence does not warrant a seven-year sentence, making relocation of the order subject to subsequent investigation reports.

What did the court decide?

The erroneous order dated 16.11.2018 is recalled. Police must comply with arrest provisions if the offence does not warrant a seven-year sentence. This order is void if a Section 173 report is filed.

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

In Re : Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 2 of 2019.

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 32818 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Nath Singh,Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

This is an application seeking correction in the order dated 16.11.2018.

¶6

It is admitted amongst the learned counsel for the parties that wrong order has been transcribed and therefore, order dated 16.11.2018 is recalled and in its place fresh order is being passed, which is as under :

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 25.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 312 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323 and 500 I.P.C., P.S.Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

This Court has the occasion to peruse the F.I.R. and the F.I.R. in question does disclose a cognizable offence. In view of this, there is no occasion for this Court to quash the F.I.R. as has been prayed on behalf of petitioner. As such, prayer made on the said score is refused by this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the offence in question as has been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is under Sections 147, 323 and 500 I.P.C. and the said offence, even if the charges are found to be proved, sentence of more than 7 years can not be awarded and in view of this, mechanically arrest should not be effectuated by the police personnel.

¶11

The fact of the matter is that till date, arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioner that he would be arrested in breach of provisions as contained under Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Once there is statutory provision provided for, then it is always expected that the said provisions would be adhered to and in case there is any violation of the same, complaint can also be made before the Magistrate concerned to remedy the situation.

¶12

In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioner is to be effectuated and the offence, in which he is wanted, will not entail sentence of more than 7 years, then in that event, concerned police personnel should deal with the matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶13

It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶14

With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.2.2019 SA

Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Babu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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