Disposed

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

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2021A482/6709/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as no offence was clearly disclosed at that stage. The prayer for quashing was refused. However, the court directed the lower courts to decide the bail application expeditiously if applicants surrender within 30 days, prohibiting coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide bail application expeditiously within 30 days of surrender; no coercive action during this period.

Asfak Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6709 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Asfak Ahmad And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Srivastava,Bare Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pavan 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 charge-sheet dated 10.09.2009 as well as further proceedings of Case No.2091 of 2019 (State Vs. Asfak Ahmad and others) arising out of Case Crime No.308 of 2018 under Sections 323, 506, 427, 308, 325 IPC, P.S. Handia, District Allahabad pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No.8, Allahabad.

¶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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asfak Ahmad 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

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

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

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