Disposed

Surendra Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2021A482/5965/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Counsel for the applicant gave up the argument on the merits and prayed for a time-bound disposal of the bail application. The court directed the lower court to decide the bail prayer expeditiously if the applicants surrender within 30 days, prohibited coercive action, and disposed of the quashing application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower courts to decide bail expeditiously if applicants surrender within 30 days; no coercive action for 30 days; quashing application disposed of.

Surendra Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5965 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, 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 the charge-sheet dated 15.5.2019 in Case No.641 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.463 of 2018 under Sections 504, 506, 323 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act and 3(2) (Va), 3/1(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi pending in the court of A.D.J./S.C/ST. Act, 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 for quashing the charge-sheet 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

¶11

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.

¶12

However, it is directed, that in case applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply 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 :- 6.8.2021 S. Singh

Surendra Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Yadav and 2 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

Smt. Goma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Faim and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Istyak @ Istak and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishipal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hosiyar Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.