Disposed

Anupam Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2020A482/17849/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings or protection to surrender, the applicant withdrew challenges to the FIR and cognizance but sought directions for expedited bail. The court refused quashing requests but directed the lower courts to hear the bail application expeditively within 45 days and forbade coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Directs lower courts to hear bail application expeditively within 45 days and prohibits coercive action against the applicant until then.

Anupam Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17849 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Anupam Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kesarwani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party No.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.04.2018, cognizance order dated 27.07.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 8893 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 0044 of 2018, under sections 323, 506, 406 IPC, police station Kotwali district Allahabad pending in the court of CJM, Allahabad.

¶7

After advancing certain arguments at length by the learned counsel for the applicant when the Court put certain query to him, he gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned charge-sheet dated 12.04.2018, cognizance order dated 27.07.2018 as well as entire proceedings of aforesaid case against the applicant and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicant to surrender before the concerned court below. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application on merits and prayed that a direction may be issued to the concerned courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶8

In view of above, the relief as sought by the applicant in the instant application is refused .

¶9

Considering the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the concerned court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law keeping in view of the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as

¶10

well as judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437.

¶11

For the period of 45 days from today or till the date of appearance of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the above case.

¶12

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.12.2020 Sazia

Anupam Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupam Chaturvedi 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

Rajvir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Raikwar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durgesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Pooja and Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rajveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rinki Vs State of U.P. and Another