Dismissed

Ramasare v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2021ABAIL/4928/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. holding that since co-accused persons have already approached the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the charge sheet and proceedings are stayed, a separate anticipatory bail application is unnecessary and inappropriate. The applicant is directed to invoke the same remedy in the pendency of the Section 482 appli

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; liberty granted to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. within three months; coercive action restrained during this period.

Ramasare Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4928 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ramasare Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Omar Zamin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Syed Omar Zamin and Ravi Shankar Maurya, learned counsels for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime no.107 of 2019, under Section 308, 147, 149, 151, 152, 186, 188, 189, 283, 332, 336, 341, 353, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Mirzapur.

¶7

On a plain reading of the pleadings in support of the anticipatory bail application in paragraph no.16, it has been culled out that the police after investigation has submitted the charge sheet no.283 of 2020 in the matter on 29.11.2019 and thereafter, supplementary charge sheet bearing charge sheet no.283-A of 2020 was also submitted on 28.06.2020 against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant raised number of convincing arguments by which it has been mentioned that if the material collected during the investigation to be true on the face value, even then, no case under section 308 IPC is made out against the applicant. The Court, to certain extent, is agreeable to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

In paragraph no.19 of the affidavit, it has been mentioned that charge sheet dated 28.06.2020 was under challenge by Hari Shankar Maurya and others having Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 20144 of 2020 in which the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C., after hearing the counsel for the applicant, directed learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks and two weeks was granted to file rejoinder affidavit. It was further directed that aforesaid 482 Cr.P.C. application be listed after expiry of the aforesaid period and as an interim measure, further proceedings of the aforementioned application pursuant to the charge sheet dated 28.06.2020 and its corresponding case no.727 of 2020 is stayed till the next date of listing.

¶9

After being confronted by this factual aspect of the issue, since co-accused persons have already invoked the plenary power of this Court challenging the charge sheet and the further proceeding of case no.727 of 2020 has already been stayed, the Court feels that invoking the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. is in much larger in its canvass by which the Court can quash the entire proceedings whereas in the instant proceedings under section 438 Cr.P.C., it is applicable to

¶10

limited extent whereby the applicants may be granted bail pending trial. Since, the Court has already granted indulgence to the co-accused persons, while staying the further proceedings and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, could be well appreciated in the 482 Cr.P.C. application while invoking the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Thus, it would not be proper that proceedings with regard to few of the accused persons are being quashed and for the rest of the persons, anticipatory bail is being granted. This would amount to multi-pronged attack in one proceeding and would lead to multifarious proceedings by the different charge-sheeted accused.

¶12

Since, interest of other co-accused persons namely Hari Shankar Maurya, Sheshmani and Bhupinder Kumar Maurya were already protected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in which the same counsel namely Sri Syed Omar Zamin has appeared on behalf of the applicant, he may also invoke the same remedy for the present applicant, if so advised.

¶13

With this observations, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected with liberty that the applicant, if so feels, may invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court within three months from today before appropriate Court. During this period, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in in connection with Case Crime no.107 of 2019, under Section 308, 147, 149, 151, 152, 186, 188, 189, 283, 332, 336, 341, 353, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Mirzapur.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.7.2021 Sumit S

Ramasare v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramasare 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

Sarvesh Devi Vs State of U.P.

Devicharan Vs State of U.P.

Madan Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Kumar Singh @ Shani Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sharik Quraishi Kasai Vs State of U.P and Another

Ajeet Yadav Vs State of Up