This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged warrants issued for non-appearance. The court held that orders not taking coercive action do not exempt the applicant from appearing, and dismissed the application as there was no illegality.
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. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13977 of 2021
Applicant :- Gyanvir Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajit Narain Mishra,Maruti Kumar Tripathi,Sunil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Maruti Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicants.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Divison), F.T.C.-III, Gorakhpur whereby on 05.04.2021, it has issued bailable warrants against the applicants.
Applicant's contention is that in Application U/S 482 Nos. 33549 and 42288 of 2013, there were orders of taking no coercive action and therefore, applicant was not appearing before the court concerned when bailable warrants have been issued. It is submitted that when there were orders by the High Court to not to take any coercive measures, then the court concerned was not entitled to issue bailable warrants.
The meaning and import of not taking any coercive action is to not to coerce the applicant, it does not mean that applicant is exonerated or is granted exemption from appearing before the court of law and stop cooperating in the proceedings of the trial. It is evident from the ordersheets, which have been enclosed by the applicant that bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant due to his non-appearance.
Applicant is free to appear before the court concerned, furnished bail bonds, as may be prescribed by the court concerned and participate in the proceedings of the court. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order, calling for interference, application fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.9.2021 Vikram/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether issuance of bailable warrants against the applicant despite High Court orders not to take coercive action constitutes illegality warranting interference.
Gyanvir Yadav
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
