Dismissed

Gaurav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2023A482/4617/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of proceedings under the SC/ST Act, the court noted the applicant counsel did not press the prayer to quash but instead sought expedited bail consideration. The court dismissed the quashing prayer and directed that if the applicants surrender and apply for bail within 30 days, it must be decided expeditiously, with no coercive action pending.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing dismissed; Directive for expeditious bail consideration within 30 days of surrender; No coercive action until then.

Gaurav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4617 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Gaurav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajeev Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants-Gaurav, Saurabh and Sachin with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 24.8.2022 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act (P.A.) Kannauj in Complaint Case No.72 of 2022, Smt. Premlata Vs. Gaurav and others, u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, P.S. Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act (P.A.) Kannauj as well as entire proceedings of aforesaid case and to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court.

¶8

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. He further states that although the prayer has been made for quashing of the summoning order and entire proceedings of the case but he does not press the same.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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 before the trial court and apply for bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law keeping in view that the matter relates to

¶12

SC/ST Act also.

¶13

Till the aforesaid period, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶14

It is 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

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 23.2.2023 Gaurav

¶18

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gaurav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav and 2 Others 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

Sarbajeet Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahees Khan @ Patela and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheela Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod @ Vivek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Mobin Khan Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Rakesh @ Chandan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others