Disposed

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

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2021A482/6679/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged the charge-sheet and cognizance order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court quashed the petition, stating disputed facts could not be adjudicated at this stage, but directed speedy disposal of the bail application if the applicant surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; No coercive action for 30 days if bail applied within that period upon surrender.

Saurav Urf Gaurav Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6679 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Saurav Urf Gaurav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rabindra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant 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 filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 13.3.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 24.1.2020 in Criminal Case No.83 of 2020 (Case Crime No.55 of 2018), under Sections 354, 452, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Rohaniya, District Varanasi pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-Xth/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Varanasi.

¶7

The contention of counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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 applicant. 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 entire proceedings and charge sheet is refused.

¶10

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

¶11

However, it is directed, that in case applicant appears and

¶12

surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail the court below shall consider and decide the bail prayer of applicant 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 applicant in aforementioned case.

¶14

With the above directions, present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Kpy

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurav Urf Gaurav 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

Shahabuddin Ahmad @ Sameer Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Nurul Ain Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another