Disposed

Vinay Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2020CRLR/648/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Court refused the petition's substantive relief as it was no longer pressed. However, granting a direction that coercive action be stayed against the petitioner for 45 days, and ordering the lower court to hear his bail application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against the petitioner for 45 days; lower court directed to hear bail application expeditiously.

Vinay Kumar Vs State of Up and Another — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 648 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Vinay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Subhash Chand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, 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 revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No.1, Aligarh in S.T. No. 168 of 2018 (State Vs. Raju and others) arising out of case crime no. 733 of 2017, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, whereby application (paper no.18 kha) under Section 319 Cr.P.C. of the informant/opposite party no.2 has been allowed and revisionist has been summoned to face trial as an additional accused under Sections 376D, 120B IPC.

¶7

After advancing certain arguments at some length by the learned counsel for the revisionist, when the Court put certain query to him, he gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned order dated 08.01.2020 against the revisionist and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicant to surrender before the concerned court below. The learned counsel for the revisionist 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 revisionist expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶8

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

¶9

Considering the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist, it is directed that in case revisionist appears before the concerned court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the revisionist shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in

¶10

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 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 revisionist before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist in the above case.

¶12

With the above observations and directions, this revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.2.2020 AK Pandey

Vinay Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar v. State of Up 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

Sarvesh and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rajendra Kumar Chhabara Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hemlata and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

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.