Dismissed

Bablie v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2019CRLRD/579/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. With regard to delay in filing, the delay was condoned. The court held that the trial court had sufficient evidence from the victim's deposition to summon the accused and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed; delay condoned. If the appellant surrenders within 30 days, bail may be considered; otherwise coercive action may be taken.

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

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 579 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Bablie Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Vineet Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Order on Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019

¶6

Heard Sri Vineet Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The reason for the delay in filing this criminal revision is found to be sufficient, hence the delay in filing the present revision is condoned. The present delay condonation application is allowed.

¶8

Order Date :- 23.7.2019 A.P. Pandey

¶9

. .

¶10

Court No. - 65

¶11

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 579 of 2019

¶12

Revisionist :- Bablie Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Vineet Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶14

Heard Sri Vineet Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶15

The present revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat, whereby the revisionist has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 339 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 78 of 2018, under Sections 376D, 506, 323, 34 IPC P.S. Baraur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶16

Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned order has been erroneously passed as there was no sufficient evidence against the revisionist before the trial court to summon the accused revisionist under above mentioned sections, hence impugned order needs to be quashed.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing the impugned order.

¶18

I have seen the impugned order dated 21.2.2019, whereby the accused-revisionist has been summoned to face trial under Section 376D, 506, 323, 34 IPC on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The trial court has recorded that in statement before the trial court PW-1/victim has deposed that all the three accused, which included the accused revisionist, had committed rape upon her in the night, on the date of occurrence between 11:00 to 12:00 pm, accordingly, the accused revisionist has been summoned under the above mentioned sections.

¶19

In view of above, I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

However, it is provided that if the revisionist appears and

¶21

surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered by the court below in accordance with law. Till 30 days no coercive action shall be taken against the accused-applicant but but if applicants do not move application within 30 days, the court shall take coercive action.

¶22

With the aforesaid direction, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.7.2019 A.P. Pandey

Bablie v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablie v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Siddheshwar Banerjee and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Laxmina Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Another

Vijay Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babloo Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Javed Akhtar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Januki Prasad @ Janki Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others