Partly allowed

Baliram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021A482/16039/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail indirectly in an application for expeditious disposal at a stage before the bail hearing, instead directing discharge application within 30 days and avoiding coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Directing no coercive action for 30 days conditioned on appearance and bail application; permitting separate application for discharge to be heard on merits.

Baliram Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16039 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Baliram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 proceedings of summon Case No. 18/2020 (Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Baliram) under Sections 354-B I.P.C. & Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S.-Gaur, District- Basti including summon order dated 27.01.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge/Spl. Court POCSO Act Basti.

¶7

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶8

Considering the prayer of the applicant and in view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶9

For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶10

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶11

However, as requested, the applicant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing, decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period which shall not exceed a period of three months from today.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.9.2021 Sharad/-

Baliram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram 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

Shubham Pandey (Minor) Vs State of Up and Aother

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish @ Chhotu Thakur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Solanki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aakash Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gourav Sikka Vs State of U.P. and Another