Dismissed

Rajeshwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2023A482/4282/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed the application to quash a non-bailable warrant and summoning order. While refusing quashment due to factual disputes, the court directed an arrest hold and expedited bail hearing per Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Non-bailable warrant not quashed; arrest hold granted for six weeks; direction to trial court to dispose bail application expeditiously.

Rajeshwar Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4282 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Rajeshwar Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Dhar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 4th November, 2022 and summoning order dated 16th November, 2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 6, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 2231 of 2007 (State of U.P. Vs. Suresh & Others).

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after submission of the charge-sheet and passing the cognizance taking order, on various dates, the applicant appeared before the court below but due to some reasons, he could not appear before the court below, hence the impugned non-bailable warrant has been issued against him.

¶8

4.The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case to quash the impugned order. The prayer to quash the same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶10

However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that the applicants shall surrender before the concerned court below within six weeks from today and in case 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) 10 SCC 773 . 7. For the period of six weeks from today or till the time of

¶11

surrender of the applicant before the concerned court below, whichever is earlier, they shall not be arrested in the above case.

¶12

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

¶13

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 10.2.2023

¶15

Sushil/-

¶16

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

Rajeshwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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

Manish Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Yadav and 5 Othes Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamta Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another