Dismissed

Javed v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2021CRLP/243/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Through a common order, the High Court permitted withdrawal of two criminal writ petitions by the petitioners, granting liberty to file anticipatory bail applications. The Court directed competent courts to decide such bail applications expeditiously, considering the factum of the alleged marriage.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw proceedings with liberty to file anticipatory bail applications; direction for expedited disposal by competent court.

Javed Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 243 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Javed Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amit Daga

¶4

And

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1144 of 2021

¶6

Petitioner :- Najir And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Niklank Kumar Jain

¶7

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶8

Sri Mohammad Khalid for the petitioners, Sri J.K. Upadhyay for the State and Sri Amit Daga for respondent no. 4.

¶9

As both these petitions arise out of Crime No. 513 of 2020 of P.S. Jalesar, District Etah seeking quashment of FIR dated 17.12.2020 for the offence under Section 366 of I.P.C. and Section 3, 5(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020, P.S. Jalesar, District Etah, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Javed was having affair with Ayushi aged about 22 years and they performed Nikah on 28.11.2020. After Nikah, they lived together happily for about one month, however, thereafter Ayushi was forcibly taken by the police. He submits that undisputedly, Javed and Ayushi are major and have every right to live as per their own free will. It has been argued that later on while recording 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Ayushi, she was forced by the police to give a particular statement and that is why, she has stated not exactly against the petitioner but made some sort of allegations of kidnapping. It has been argued that the family of Javed i.e. brother, sister, sister-in-law have also been implicated in the case though they have nothing to do with the crime in question. It has been argued that even as on date, Javed wants to live with his wife, however, if any of the family member would be arrested, he would be under deep

¶11

trouble and would be harassed unnecessarily.

¶12

On instructions learned counsel for the petitioners, wants to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate application by petitioners seeking anticipatory bail before the competent Court. It has been argued that in the eventuality of filing any anticipatory bail application by petitioners, the competent court be directed to decide the same expeditiously considering all the aspects of the case including the factum of marriage of Javed and Ayushi. He further submits that till the anticipatory bail application is decided, some protection be granted to the petitioners.

¶13

On the other hand, State counsel and counsel for the objector have seriously opposed these petitions. They submits that petitioners are not entitled for any relief much less the interim relief as prayed for, therefore, no direction may be issued to the trial court.

¶14

Be that as it may, petitioners are permitted to withdraw these petitions with the liberty as prayed for.

¶15

Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

¶16

Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any anticipatory bail application by the petitioners together with application for ad interim anticipatory bail, the competent court may decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law considering all the aspects of the case including the fact that Javed and Ayushi, as alleged, have already performed marriage.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent court to act in accordance with law.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner (s) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶19

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.2.2021 SK

Javed v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Savita Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ajay Narayan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Deshraj Dubey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Najir and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others