Disposed

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

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2021A482/5199/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the summoning order and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. due to existence of disputed facts. Instead, it granted directions for the lower court to decide the bail application expeditiously if applicants surrender within 30 days, prohibiting coercive actions during this period.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against applicants for 30 days; lower court directed to decide bail application expeditiously if applicants surrender.

Faisal Rahees and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5199 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Faisal Rahees And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shahnawaz Akhtar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shahnawaz Akhtar, 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 7.7.2015 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.318 of 2015 (Omprakash Vs. Faisal Rahees and others) under Sections 427, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun.

¶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

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

With the above directions, present application is disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.8.2021 S. Singh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faisal Rahees and 3 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

Avdhesh and 5 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