Partly allowed

Shailendra Yadav @ Shailendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2023A482/41380/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of criminal proceedings and a request for directions regarding bail. The Court refused to quash the proceedings, stating disputed questions of fact preclude such an exercise at this stage. However, it directed the trial court to expedite the bail hearing as per Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused. Request for bail directions disposed of.

Shailendra Yadav @ Shailendra Kumar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41380 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shailendra Yadav @ Shailendra Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prakash Chandra Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Mr P.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the private respondent is present.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the cognizance order dated 2.7.2022 as well as charge sheet and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4898 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0234 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506,325,308 IPC, P.S. Brijmanganj, District Maharajganj.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.

¶8

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. 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 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 (Cr.) 192, lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 , State of M.P. Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta and others [(2004) 1 SCC 691, and Dr. Monica Kumar and Another Vs State of UP and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 781 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.

¶10

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 Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922 .

¶11

In the case of Satendra 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

¶12

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, same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the court below in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶13

As such application has no force and is accordingly disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.2.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶15

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

Shailendra Yadav @ Shailendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Yadav @ Shailendra Kumar Yadav 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

Amar Jeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suneeta Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priya Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arif and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another