Disposed

Arjun and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2021A482/17417/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant in a Section 482 application gave up the challenge to quash criminal proceedings and sought expedited bail adjudication. The court refused to quash the case but directed no coercive action against the applicant for 30 days or until appearance, mandating expedited bail hearing.

What did the court decide?

Relief to quash proceedings refused. Direction issued for no coercive action for 30 days or till appearance, pending expedited bail hearing.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17417 of 2020

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Seema Shukla, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No.36 of 2020 (Chhote @ Vishal Vs. Arjun and another), under sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 5 Chha/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kanpur, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar as well as the summoning order dated 17.09.2020.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

Considering the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the concerned court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in 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

¶10

Supreme Court Cases, 437 .

¶11

For the period of 30 days from today or till the date of appearance of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the above case.

¶12

It is made clear that no application seeking extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not complied with within the aforesaid period.

¶13

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.1.2021 Lbm/-

Arjun and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun 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

Jhinak Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamsuddin Vs State of U.P.

Sabir Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepika Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Vaishali Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another