Disposed

Kawaljeet Kaur v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019CRLR/4350/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cementing a criminal revision regarding a quashing plea, the court refused to quash proceedings but directed the release of the revisionist from coercive measures for 45 days and allowed a bail application if the revisionist surrenders within that period.

What did the court decide?

No coercive measures for 45 days; bail to be considered if revisionist surrenders and applies within that period.

Kawaljeet Kaur Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4350 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Kawaljeet Kaur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Roshan Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This revision has been moved on behalf of the revisionist for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.09.2019 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court no.4, Chaziabad in Special Session Trial No. 148 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 1449 of 2018, under Sections 307, 323, 120B IPC, Police Station-Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that no offence against the revisionist 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 applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶8

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 revisionist at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this revision. 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 revisionist 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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 10.12.2019 JK Yadav

Kawaljeet Kaur v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kawaljeet Kaur 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Sharma @ Dinesh Chand Sharma and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ashish Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahangi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ummed and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bahadur Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another