Disposed

Natthu Lal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2021A482/14454/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings and expedite bail, the High Court declined an immediate decision on bail, directing the applicants to surrender and apply within three weeks. During this period, no coercive action shall be taken; failure to appear will attract coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action to be taken for three weeks pending surrender and bail application; disposal otherwise if applicants fail to appear.

Natthu Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14454 of 2013

¶3

Applicant :- Natthu Lal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.P. Tiwrai,R.S. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Chandra Bhan Kushwaha

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of S.S.T. No.44 of 2013 (Parmeshwari Vs. Natthu Lal and others), under Section 392 I.P.C., Police Station- Ughaiti, District- Budaun, pending in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A.), Budaun.

¶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 applies 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

¶11

appear/ surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 22.7.2021 shiv

Natthu Lal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natthu Lal and 3 Others 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

Radhey Shyam and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu Tewari and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zillay Illahi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajwati Alias Phoolwati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rehana Khanam and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another