Dismissed

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2022A482/17785/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the trial court. It held that no new grounds were shown and the impugned order was a necessary coercive step to secure the applicant's presence. However, it ordered an expeditious hearing on bail if the applicant appeared sooner.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of the Non-Bailable Warrant refused; bail hearing directed if application filed within 30 days.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17785 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishal Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the N.B.W. dated 31.5.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (JD)/FTC- II Hathras, in Case No. 1729 of 2021 (State Vs. Vinod Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 2 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hathras, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (JD)/FTC- II Hathras, with a further prayer to stay the aforesaid proceedings.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the present first information report has been lodged against the applicant and four others with averment that the informant is the legally weded wife of applicant Vinod Kumar and three children has born out of the wedlock. The informant has alleged matrimonial cruelty, commission of unnatural sex by applicant and also forcing her to have sexual relationship with her brother, to which she objected and made a complaint to her father. She also levelled allegations of matrimonial cruelty against her in-laws. Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that no injury on the person of informant/victim has been found in the medico legal report. In fact she did not want to live with applicant that is why she filed a case under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce before the Family Court. The applicant has not made any cruelty with her. Police submitted chargesheet in the case with proper investigation. Cognizance has been taken over it by court below. Applicant and his family members have filed an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.18175 of 2021 challenging the order dated 17.5.2021, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.5.2022. The family members of the applicant were released on bail by the court below. During the pendency of the previous application before this Court, the court below has issued N.B.W. against applicant, which is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the

¶9

informant opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant in FIR, which was registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 377, 328 I.P.C. and chargesheet has been filed in the case after investigation. The another Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.18175 of 2021 has observed that the victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. has incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicant for the offence alleged and it cannot be said that prima-facie case is not made out against the applicant.

¶10

The present application has been filed by the applicant after dismissal of previous Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.18175 of 2021 vide order dated 12.5.2022. The situation has not substantially changed and only coercive process of N.B.W. has been issued against the applicant by the Court concerned to procure presence of the applicant before the Court below. No good ground has been shown by the applicant for exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.

¶11

However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears before the court concerned within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.

¶12

With the above directions, this application is disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 13.9.2022 Kamarjahan

¶14

Digitally signed by KAMARJAHAN ANSARI Date: 2022.09.13 18:08:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar 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

Surendra Pal Singh @ Bhala Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ram Dhakeli Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naseem Ahmad @ Bhagat Ji Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Yogesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neeraj Mavi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pintu @ Arun Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and Another