Disposed

Yogendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2021A482/19092/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the cognizance order and charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC as grounds were insufficient. Instead, it directed the lower court to expeditiously decide the bail application if applicants surrendered within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower court to decide bail application expeditiously if applicants appear and surrender within 30 days; no coercive action for that period.

Yogendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19092 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Yogendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yashwant Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Akhil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-opposite party no. 1 and Sri Yashvant Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 31.8.2020 and charge sheet dated 3.6.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 604 of 2020 (State vs. Yogendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 95 of 2020, u/s 308, 325, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants at the very outset has fairly submitted that the necessary grounds for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC have not been made out in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, he does not wish to press his prayer as made in the application.

¶8

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

¶9

At this stage counsel for the applicants has made an alternative prayer for a direction to be issued to the court below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicants, expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the concerned court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the bail application of the applicants shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court 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 CrLJ 755 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437.

¶11

For the period of 30 days from today or till the date of

¶12

appearance of the applicants before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the above case.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 11.1.2021 Shalini

¶15

(Dr. Y.K.Srivastava,J.)

Yogendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra and 2 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

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Matibar Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bajrang Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Enamuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rachhit Pandey (Minor) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra @ Ravindra Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another