Disposed

Neeraj and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 May 2023A482/13004/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the proceedings in a criminal complaint case involving Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC, citing lack of prima facie case. The court directed the trial court to expeditiously hear any future bail application from the applicants following the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of proceedings refused; directions given to trial court to expeditiously hear bail application if filed by applicants.

Neeraj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104292

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13004 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Neeraj And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.370 of 2020, under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC, Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur including the summoning order dated 21.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Saharanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants, which was treated as complaint case and after recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned to face trial. He further submits that there are business transaction between co-accused Manish Kumar and complainant but to make undue pressure upon the applicants, the complainant had lodged the present false and frivolous case against the applicants. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶9

All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC

¶10

(Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶11

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case is hereby refused.

¶12

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that directions may be given to the court below to consider the bail application of the applicants in view of the judgment in the case Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶13

In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the cases have been divided under four categories. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines, while considering the bail application. This Court has no doubt, that as and when, the applicants approach the trial court for bail, the trial court shall definitely follow the directions given in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra).

¶14

However, considering the nature of the allegations and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶15

With the above directions, this application u/s 482 is disposed of finally.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.5.2023

¶17

Ajeet

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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

Prempal Singh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Abdul Rahman Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kailash Chand Sharma@ Kailashi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afsar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another