Disposed

Prem Prakash Sahni v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2023A482/40441/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, after the applicant relinquished the prayer for quashing the FIR in allegations of trafficking and intimidation, directed him to move a bail application before the trial court within four weeks, with a 30-day stay on coercive action pending the same.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was directed to move a bail application before the trial court within four weeks; no coercive action to be taken against him for 30 days.

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

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40441 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Prem Prakash Sahni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Chandra Pandey,Keshawa Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Krishna Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Since it is also a case under section 3/4 POCSO Act hence notice was issued to opposite party no.2 which is still awaited.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that it is not a case in which the applicant has committed the crime under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. He further argued that as per FIR the role of the applicant is only to threaten the victim. In the statement under Section 161 CrPC the victim has stated that when she was on the motorcycle of the main accused Jaipal, the applicant Prem Prakash reached there and left her at his brother's house. In the statement under Section 164 CrPC the victim has stated that the applicant had tendered threatening to public the video clip and when she was left in Sahjanwa the applicant was also accompanying her and he had also threatened to dire consequences and on the basis of above averments no case under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC is made out against the applicant and maximum a case under Section 506 IPC may be said to be attracted.

¶8

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he relinquishes the prayer for quashment and wishes to move bail application before the trial court in view of the guidelines/observations given by Hon'ble Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 .

¶9

Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer so made.

¶10

Considering the above submissions and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the applicant appears before the court concerned within four weeks from today and moves application for bail, the same shall be

¶11

considered and disposed of in terms of the guidelines/observations given by Hon'ble Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil (supra).

¶12

For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶13

It is made clear that in the event no such application is moved within the time prescribed above, this order will be of no avail to the applicant.

¶14

With the above direction, the instant application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.3.2023 Shahroz

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prem Prakash Sahni v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Prakash Sahni 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

Ranu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalbrat Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anis and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another