Disposed

Mahendra Lodh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2022A482/11459/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this short order, the High Court did not decide a quashing petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. Instead, it issued a direction that if the applicants apply for bail within two weeks, their application shall be decided in accordance with the Apex Court judgment in Sateyndra Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower court that bail applications, if filed within two weeks, shall be decided in view of Sateyndra Kumar Antil.

Mahendra Lodh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11459 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Lodh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned AGA-1 appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

¶6

By way of filing present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., applicants prayed to quash the impugned order dated 5.1.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act as well as criminal proceeding of S.T. No. 72 of 2016, arising out of case crime No. 783 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

¶7

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he does not want to press the prayer made in the present application. He further submitted that he only confines his prayer to issue direction to the lower court that when the applicants will appear and apply for bail then their bail application shall be decided in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Sateyndra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & others reported in [2021 (10) SCC 773] .

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and AGA submitted that they have no objection if such direction is given as learned counsel for the applicants himself does not want to press the prayer made in the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and only confine to his prayer that a suitable direction may be given to the court below in view of the Apex Court judgement passed in the case of Sateyndra Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶9

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if the applicants appear before the court below within two weeks from today and apply for bail then their bail application shall be decided by the court below in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sateyndra Kumar Antil(supra) .

¶10

With the aforesaid observation, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off .

¶11

Order Date :- 18.7.2022 Ankita

¶12

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.20 18:43:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Lodh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Lodh and 2 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faiz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar @ Ramu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satyapal Singh Verma Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Nisha Rani Gupta Vs State of U.P.and 4 Others

Rohit Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another