Disposed

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

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2023A482/41277/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicants voluntarily gave up their challenge to the non-bailable warrant but sought protection to surrender. The Court directed surrender within three weeks and expedited bail hearing, keeping the warrant in abeyance for the interim period.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to surrender within three weeks; non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance; bail hearing to be disposed of expeditiously.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:214941

¶2

Court No. - 89

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41277 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Tugyan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the non bailable warrant dated 15.09.2023 issued against the applicants and proceedings of Case No. 3065 of 2022 (State Vs. Dil Mohammad) arising out of Case Crime No.355 A of 2013, under Sections 147, 452, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Raunapar, District Azamgarh.

¶8

At the outset learned counsel for the applicants gave up his challenge to the aforesaid non-bailable warrant and criminal proceedings against the applicants and confined his submission requesting to grant some protection to the applicants to surrender before the concerned court below. The learned counsel for the applicants further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application on merits and prayed that a direction may be issued to the concerned courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicants expeditiously.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. submits that in case the applicants are not pressing the relief as sought for by them on merits and want to surrender before the concerned court below, he has no objection if the Court grants protection to him for a short period.

¶10

In view of the above, the relief as sought by the applicants in the instant application is refused.

¶11

However considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that the applicants shall surrender before the concerned court below within three weeks from today and in case they apply for bail, the bail application of the applicants shall be disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶12

For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the concerned Court below, whichever is earlier, non-bailable warrant dated 15.09.2023 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶13

With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Meenu Singh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tugyan 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

Rajnish Pal @ Tilka Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Neeti Raijada @ Renu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pragya Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jamanadas and 6 Othrs Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munshi Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another