Dismissed

Harihar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2021A482/11001/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of under-s.482 application. Held disputed facts cannot be decided under s.482. Directed that if applicants appear and apply for bail within three weeks, bail will be considered expeditiously with no coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action for three weeks if applicants appear and apply for bail; bail to be considered expeditiously thereafter.

Harihar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11001 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Harihar Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the case no. 1928 of 2020, including charge sheet no. 01 of 2019 dated 14.5.2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at padrauna, District Kushinagar for the offence under Section 447, 504 & 506 IPC in case crime no. 04 of 2019, P.S. Nebua Navrangiya, District Kushinagar.

¶7

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light 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 disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that he does not want to press other prayers made in the prayer clause and has only made a prayer for expeditious disposal of his bail application in view of law laid down 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.

¶9

Considering the prayer of the applicants, it is directed that if the applicants appear/ surrender before the court below and apply for bail within three weeks from today, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶10

For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants appear/ surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 27.7.2021 A.P. Pandey

Harihar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harihar Yadav and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheeraj Khare Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kumari Chanda Thru Murari @ Murali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Purushottam Giri Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Lokesh Dhodi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajnesh Vs State of U.P. and Another