Remanded

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

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2021A482/6259/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings based on a disputed land suit and allegation of mala fide. The single judge held no prima facie case for interference, refused the quash prayer, but directed expeditious bail consideration upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused; directed to consider bail application within 30 days of surrender with no coercive action.

Rustam and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6259 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rustam And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No.34 of 2018 (State Vs. Salam & Others) as well as the entire proceedings of charge-sheet dated 07.02.2018 arising out of case crime no. 640 of 2017, under sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 427, 354 (ख) I.P.C. & 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kasimabad, District- Ghazipur, pending in the court of Special Judge/ POCSO IInd, Ghazipur. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that civil suit filed by the applicant regarding the disputed land is pending between the parties. Present F.I.R. has been filed with malafide intention after instituting the suit. Incident, as alleged in the F.I.R., never took place. The order has been passed without application of judicial mind.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The court concerned at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused.

¶10

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants prays that a

¶11

direction may be issued to the court below for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the applicants.

¶12

Hence, it is directed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken/given effect to against the applicants. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.3.2021 shiv

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rustam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukhtar Vs State of U.P.

Prabal Pratap @ Naveen Vs State of U.P.

Smt Anita Vs State of U.P.

Tejpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabir and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani Vs State of U.P.