Dismissed

Matadeen v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2022CRLR/1750/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision seeking quashing of an order summoning the applicant for trial under Cr.P.C. 319. The Court found no legal infirmity justifying interference and declined to issue specific bail directions, relying on existing Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the impugned order refused; revision disposed without specific bail direction.

Matadeen Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1750 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Matadeen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anuj Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This revision has been filed for setting aside the Judgement and order dated 17.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.42, District Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 248 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2009 (State Vs. Ravari and others), whereby the revisionist has been summoned to face trial under Sections 306, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur, on application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶7

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any legal infirmity in the order which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under revisional jurisdiction.

¶8

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.

¶9

At this stage, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the revisionist and there may be coercive processes issued against the revisionist by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the revisionist.

¶10

As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the revision is disposed off. Order Date :- 25.7.2022 S.Ali

¶12

Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.07.26 13:44:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Matadeen v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matadeen 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

Musaf Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Manoj Agrawal Vs State of U.P and Another

Malti Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bindu Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Oters

Devendra Singh Vs Smt. Champa Devi and Another