Disposed

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

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023A482/2653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summoning and stay proceedings in a POCSO case, the court dismissed the specific prayers as not pressed. However, it directed that if the accused surrenders and applies for bail within two weeks, the application shall be decided expeditiously with no coercive action until then.

What did the court decide?

Prayers for quashing and stay dismissed as not pressed; bail application to be considered expeditiously if applicant surrenders within two weeks.

Vinod Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2653 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Sahu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Garg Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Garg, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Arti Agrawal, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Vinod Kumar Sahu with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 05.09.2022 arising out of Complaint Case No. 08 of 2022 (Smt. Suman Devi versus Vinod Kumar Sahu) under Sections 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Marka, District Banda, pending in the court of Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Banda and with further that further proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicant during the pendency of the present application.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant states that the purpose of the applicant would suffice if an order is passed directing the trial court to decide the bail application of the applicant, as expeditiously as possible. He further states that although the prayer has been made for quashing of summoning order and staying of further proceeding of the case but he does not press the same as he intends to raise all his objections during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State has no objection of aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing of summoning order and staying of further proceeding of the case is dismissed as not pressed.

¶11

However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the limited prayer of learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that if the accused-applicant surrenders before the trial court and applies for bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Till the aforesaid period, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶12

It it clarified that if the accused-applicant does not appear before the court concerned by the said date, the court concerned shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶13

The present application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Vijay

¶15

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Sahu 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

Abhishek Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Vs Ashok Kumar

Md. Kamran Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Dilshad Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shitu @ Shitu Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonvarsi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others