Disposed

Karan Singh @ Karuwa v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2021A482/4627/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the Single Judge refused to quash the non-bailable warrant and session trial proceedings. Court issued a conditional order granting the applicant one week to surrender and apply for bail, pledging no coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Granted one-week period to surrender and apply for bail; no coercive action during this period if complied.

Karan Singh @ Karuwa Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4627 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Karan Singh @ Karuwa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Neta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the non-bailable warrant dated 19.01.2007 and the proceeding under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. dated 04.02.2013 as well as entire proceeding of Gangster Sessions Trial No. 265 of 2001 (State v. Karan Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 148 of 1998, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Hasayan, District Hathras pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge-IV, Hathras.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was granted bail on 01.06.1999 in Case Crime No. 148 of 1998, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. He further submits that as the applicant is a poor labourer, after being released from bail he went to Mumbai to earn his livelihood, therefore, he could not appear before the trial court on subsequent dates. Hence, non-bailable warrant has been issued. He also submits that the reasons, on account of which the applicant failed to appear before the trial Court, were beyond his control and the applicant has every intention to appear before the Court concerned and participate in the trial. He further submits that the applicant undertakes to appear before the Court below on each and every date.

¶8

No ground for quashing the order of non-bailable warrant as well as entire proceedings of the session trial is made out, therefore, the prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.

¶9

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the order impugned as well as other material on record, this application is disposed of with the direction that in case the applicant surrenders before the Court concerned within a period of one week from today and applies for bail, his bail

¶10

application shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶11

For a period of one week from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case the applicant does not appear before the Court concerned within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 16.3.2021 SKT/-

Karan Singh @ Karuwa v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Singh @ Karuwa 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

Smt. Anarkali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Avanish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajab Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ghanshyam Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Sahu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another