Disposed

Avdhesh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2021A482/5063/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings dismissed as disputed facts cannot be adjudicated. Court directed trial court to decide bail within 30 days of surrender and stayed coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of summoning order and proceedings refused. Directed lower court to decide bail application within 30 days of surrender. Stay on coercive action for 30 days.

Avdhesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5063 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Avdhesh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking quashing of summoning order dated 28.1.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.4069 of 2019 (State Vs. Avdhesh and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kokhraj, District Kaushambi pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.

¶7

The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer sought as aforesaid is refused.

¶10

After arguing the case for quite some time at length, learned counsel for the applicants himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his clients would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide their bail application within specific time frame.

¶11

However, it is directed, that in case applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicants expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶12

For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of bail application whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants in the aforesaid case

¶13

With the above directions, present application is disposed off.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.8.2021 S. Singh

Avdhesh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avdhesh and 5 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

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurav Urf Gaurav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faisal Rahees and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asfak Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Meraz Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another