Disposed

Vijay Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2022CRLA/2359/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad disposed of an appeal to quash criminal proceedings by refusing the quashing prayer. However, it directed that the appellants could apply for bail within three weeks to be decided expeditiously, referencing the Supreme Court's law in Satender Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Liberty granted to appear for bail within three weeks to be decided expeditiously.

Vijay Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 89 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2359 of 2022 Appellant :- Vijay Yadav And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Krishna Kant Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar,Vishal Jaiswal

¶2

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for appellants-applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶4

The present criminal appeal has been filed for setting aside the charge sheet No. 59/2021, dated 18.08.2021, cognizance order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi Gyanpur as well as entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 318/2021 "State Vs. Omkar Nath Yadav", arising out of case crime No. 59/2021, under Sections 147/148/149/323/504/325/452/336/427/506 I.P.C. and section 3(2) 5A of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Chauri, District Bhadohi.

¶5

Learned counsel for appellants-applicants, after arguing for some time, submits that present appeal may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a bail application which may be decided in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in "Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021 " to which learned A.G.A. has no objection, however, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant.

¶6

In view of the above, prayer for quashing the impugned proceeding is refused. So far as other prayer is concerned, it is provided that in case the appellants-applicants namely Vijay Yadav and Ravindra Yadav appear before the trial court within three weeks' from today and apply for bail, the same shall be decided expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra).

¶7

Order Date :- 25.7.2022/RC

¶8

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.07.26 18:42:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Yadav and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karan Alias Karanveer and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Patel and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Alias Karanveer and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradumn Mall @ Sonu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another