Dismissed

Ramakant @ Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2021A482/20093/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant withdrew the prayer to quash proceedings and chargesheet seeking bail instead. The Court refused quashing but directed expedient consideration of bail if applied within 30 days, suspending coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Bail to be considered expeditiously if applicant appears in court below within 30 days; coercive action stayed during this period.

Ramakant @ Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20093 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ramakant @ Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 19.06.2020 along with cognizance order dated 26.08.2020 in Special Case No. 161 of 2020, State v. Umang and others, as well as entire proceeding of Special Case No. 161 of 2020, State v. Umang and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2020, under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5a) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Atarra, District Banda pending in the Court of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Banda.

¶7

At the very outset learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that he does not want to press the principal prayers seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as chargesheet as have been made in the application. He is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, seek bail and accept all the conditions, which this Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the hearing of the bail application may be done expeditiously.

¶8

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the prayer, insofar as it relates to seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as charge-sheet, stands refused.

¶9

However, 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 expeditiously in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶10

For a period of 30 days from today or till the appearance of the applicant before the court concerned, 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.

¶11

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

¶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

Order Date :- 13.1.2021 SKT/-

Ramakant @ Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant @ Amit Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Farms Chemicals and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P and Another

Prakash @ Ram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another