Disposed

Samaryab v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2020A482/7532/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Section 482 application to quash proceedings because the applicant withdrew the challenge to the charge sheet. Instead, the Court authorized coercive action restraint and directed expedited bail hearing upon the applicant's appearance.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action stayed for 45 days or until appearance; lower courts directed to hear bail application expeditiously.

Samaryab Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7532 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Samaryab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Patel 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 for quashing of the charge sheet dated 04.04.2016, cognizance order dated 21.05.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of P.S.T. No. 99 of 2019 (State vs Samaryab) arising out of Case Crime No. 552 of 2015, under sections 376, 313, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, police station Kairana, district Shamli, pending in the court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shamli.

¶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 04.04.2016 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.

¶10

State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as 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 :- 25.2.2020 Sazia

Samaryab v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samaryab 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

Veerpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kripa Shankar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rinku Vs State of Up and Another

Manoj Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irshad Khan Vs State of Up and Another