Dismissed

Sampann Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2023A482/3827/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondent counsel raised no objection to the applicants' request. The prayer for quashing was dismissed as not pressed. The High Court directed the bailable warrants to remain in abeyance if applicants surrender and apply for bail within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings dismissed as not pressed. Bailable warrants kept in abeyance; accused directed to surrender and apply for bail within two weeks.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3827 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sampann Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ahmed Faizan,Fatma Anjum,Sr. Advocate

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Ms. Fatma Anjum, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Arti Agarwal, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Sampann Sharma and Md. Yaqub with the prayer to allow this application and to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 8673/2004 (State Vs. Sampan Sharma and others), arising out of case crime no. 1518 of 2004, under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad as well as bailable warrant dated 02.12.2022 and with further that further proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicants, during the pendency of the present application.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants states that the purpose of the applicants would suffice if an order is passed directing the trial court to decide the bail application of the applicants, as expeditiously as possible. She further states that although the prayer has been made for quashing and stay the proceedings of the case but she does not press the same. Learned counsel for the applicants further states while placing the order sheet of the trial court which is annexure 3 to the affidavit that vide order dated 02.12.2022 bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants.

¶10

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

¶11

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing of proceedings and staying the proceedings is dismissed as not pressed.

¶12

However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the limited prayer of learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that if the accused-applicants surrender

¶13

before the trial court and apply for bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Further, it is directed that bailable warrants as issued against the applicants by the court concerned vide order dated 02.12.2022 shall be kept in abeyance till said period.

¶14

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

¶15

The present application is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.2.2023 M. ARIF

¶17

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sampann Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampann Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepankar Pandey Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Kamal Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aditya Kumar Rathore and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Chandra Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asgar Ali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another