Single-judge HC refused to quash the Impugned order for issuing process against the applicant declared an absconder, upheld the lower court's action, but directed no coercive action for 3 weeks if she surrenders and applies for bail.
Prayer for quashing refused; no coercive action for 3 weeks upon surrender and bail application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3359 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Kamlesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.12.2019 issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No.721 of 2000, under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 420, 409, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(C)(D) read with Section 13(2) Anti-Corruption Act, P.S. Puranpur, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Court No.2, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the first information report was lodged in the year 2000 against the applicant and other persons who were indulged in corrupt practices. The matter was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted against her and cognizance was taken by Special Judge Anti-Corruption on 13.9.2011. The applicant did not appear before the court, hence, since 2011 bailable and nonbailable warrants are being issued against her for securing her attendance and vide order dated 21.12.2019 the Special Judge issued process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. which is under challenge in the present application.
In my considered opinion, there is no ground to quash the order dated 21.12.2019 as the applicant has been declared absconder and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Thus, the prayer for quashing the order impugned is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within three weeks' from today and applies for bail, her 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.
For a period of three weeks' from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against her.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.1.2020 Vikas
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dated 21.12.2019 issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the absconder should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the applicant should be granted an opportunity to surrender and apply for bail with no coercive action for three weeks.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶10
2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Kamlesh
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
