Dismissed

Maan Singh Goswami and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2022CRLAD/444/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal seeking to quash criminal proceedings involving the appellants. The court confined the disposal to adjudicating the bail application under Satender Kumar Antil, requiring appearance within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Appellants permitted to move bail application and required to appear before the trial court within fifteen days.

Maan Singh Goswami and 5 Others Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 89 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 444 of 2022

¶2

Appellant :- Maan Singh Goswami And 5 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for appellants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.

¶5

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned as cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay seems to be sufficient.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed to quash the impugned criminal proceedings in Criminal Complaint No.12 of 2019 Surendra Kumar alias Leelu versus Maan Singh Goswami and others under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(Va) of the S.C. & S.T. Act, P.S. Kavinagar, district Ghaziabad as also order dated 5.3.20220 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicants, after arguing for some time, submits that present petition 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.

¶8

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 appear before the trial court within fifteen days from today and a bail application is filed, the same be decided expeditiously, in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra). The appellants are permitted to move an application for exemption of appearance under section 205 CrPC, which if filed shall be decided first.

¶9

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶10

Order Date :- 20.7.2022/kkb.

¶11

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL Date: 2022.07.20 15:34:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maan Singh Goswami and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maan Singh Goswami and 5 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaiprakash (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Kumar @ Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amitabh Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Siraj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Bablu Alias Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Munna Lal Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others