Disposed

Vakil and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020A482/18127/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings was dismissed as disputed facts precluded adjudication. Court disposed of the matter, directing lower courts to decide the applicants' bail application within a specific timeframe after surrender, and stayed coercive action for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide bail application within 30 days of surrender; no coercive action for 30 days from date of order.

Vakil and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18127 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vakil And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Shailendra Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking the quashing of entire proceedings of case no.4815 of 2020 arising out of case crime no.71 of 2020 under Section 420, 406 IPC PS Zamaniya District Ghazipur as well as charge sheet no.192 of 2020 dated 15.6.2020 and cognizance order dated 4.7.2020 pending in the court of ACJM, Ghazipur.

¶7

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶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 applicants. 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.

¶9

After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted against certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicants himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his clients would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide their bail application within specific time frame.

¶10

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet, cognizance order and entire proceedings of the case is refused.

¶11

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and after perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, this application stands disposed of with the direction that the court below would consider the bail application of the applicants as contemplated in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC), after the applicants surrender within 30 days from today before the court below and if their bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702.

¶12

For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforementioned case.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.12.2020 SP

Vakil and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil and 2 Others 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

Jitendra Kumar Sharma @ Pradhan (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijbala Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nusrat Jahan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another