Partly allowed

Amar Pal @ Amar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2020A482/12403/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal applicant sought quashing of proceedings under S. 482 Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC. Court declined to quash due to disputed facts but directed no coercive measures for 60 days pending bail application, considering pandemic circumstances and applicant's clean record.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings declined; directed that no coercive measure be taken for 60 days if applicant appears and applies for bail.

Amar Pal @ Amar Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12403 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Amar Pal @ Amar Pal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2623 of 2019 (State Vs. Anup & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2018, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Aurangabad, District- Bulandshahar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.2, Bulandshahar.

¶7

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 applicant 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 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 .

¶8

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is declined.

¶9

However, in view of the prevailing circumstances arising in the State due to pandemic Covid-19 and looking into the nature of offence alleged and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 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 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.

¶10

For a period of 60 days from today, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 3.9.2020 Prakhar

¶13

Digitally signed by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh Date: 2020.09.03 18:36:34 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amar Pal @ Amar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Pal @ Amar Pal Singh 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

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rinku @ Rahul Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lavkush Lodhi Rajpur and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Mahaveer and 9 Others Vs State of Up and Another