Disposed

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

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2021A482/20104/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicant withdrew prayers for quashing, seeking only expedited bail hearing. Court refused quashing, ordered bail consideration if applicants surrender within 30 days, and prohibited coercive action pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; 30-day period granted for surrender; bail to be heard expeditiously if complied with; no coercive action during this period.

Kallu and Another Vs State of U.P and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20104 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Kallu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey,Dipendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Jaunpur

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants 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 13.12.2019 in Case Crime No. 0164 of 2019, under Sections 406 I.P.C., Police Station Newariya, District Jaunpur and cognizance/ summoning order dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Jaunpur.

¶7

At the very outset learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that he does not want to press the principal prayers seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well as summoning order as have been made in the application. They are 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 them. The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 applicants, the prayer, insofar as it relates to seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well as summoning order, stands refused. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and

¶9

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 applicants before the court concerned, 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.

¶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/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu 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

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

Ramakant @ Amit Kumar 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