Single judge dismissed the application in principle but issued a direction for swift hearing of bail prayer if applicants appear and surrender within 15 days, citing settled bail jurisprudence.
Direction to hear and dispose of bail application expeditiously if applicants appear and surrender within 15 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11493 of 2022 Applicant :- Pooran And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Sharma,Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 346/2021 (Smt. Guddi Devi Vs. Rahul and others), under Sections 354, 324 I.P.C., P.S.- Hathras Gate, DistrictHathras.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that initially wife of Pooran has lodged F.I.R. against the opposite party no. 2 and others under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act in Case Crime No. 409/2020 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed under Section 308 I.P.C. With intent to create pressure opposite party no. 2 Smt. Guddi Devi had filed this complaint case showing as a cross case. Date of incident is same in both cases 09.11.2020 and in this case Ramdas has been summoned under Section 324 I.P.C. and Pooran has been summoned under Section 354 I.P.C. It is further submitted that injury report of the Guddi Devi manipulated as Guddi Devi is the wife of Late Digamber Singh but in the injury report Guddi Singh showing as wife of Bhopal Singh. It is a cross case and question of aggressor shall be decided before the trial court after taking evidence of both the parties. The main submission of the applicant is that this complaint case is totally false and the case lodged by applicant described as above, is true.
At this stage, learned counsel for applicants only submitted that if a direction is issued to the trial court regarding bail, the order in that regard will meet the ends of justice.
The application is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned within 15 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down in the cases of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (95) ACC 950.
Order Date :- 10.8.2022 Sharad/-
Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.11 14:40:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶7
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶7
Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (95) ACC 950
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pooran
Another
State of U.P.
Om Prakash Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
