Partly allowed

Arshad Hussain v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2023A482/6986/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application for quashing proceedings, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned order but directed the court below to consider a bail petition if the accused surrenders within ten days, subject to heavy surety and personal undertaking to appear in court.

What did the court decide?

Refused quashing of impugned order; granted direction to consider bail application if accused surrenders within 10 days, subject to heavy surety and undertaking to appear.

Arshad Hussain Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6986 of 2023 Applicant :- Arshad Hussain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Tiwari,Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶2

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 218 of 2018, arising out of case crime no. 406 of 2017, under Section 135 Electricity Act, P.S. Devraniya, District Bareilly pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Bareilly as well as impugned order dated 29.10.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.4 Bareilly.

¶3

Heard Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Department as well as learned AGA and perused the record.

¶4

Submission made by the counsel that on account of some misunderstanding, the applicant could not appear before the court. On 29.09.2022, the lawyers were on strike and on the same day, NBW were issued against the applicant. Since 29.09.2022, the applicant has absented himself regularly and has not appear thereafter on any date.

¶5

The Court does not see any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order under challenge and also there seem to be no abuse of court's process. There is no good ground to interfere in the same, therefore, the prayer for quashing of the impugned order is refused.

¶6

However, a request has been made that the accused wants to surrender in the court below and apply for bail and for that some protective direction may be issued.

¶7

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that in case the accused persons surrender and apply for bail within ten days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. In the event, the court would fasten an additional condition of heavy surety and his personal undertaking that he would regularly attend the proceeding of Criminal Case no. 218 of 2018, arising out of case crime no. 406 of 2017, under Section 135 Electricity Act, P.S. Devraniya, District Bareilly.

¶8

It is further expected from the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Bareilly that he would take up the matter on priority basis and decide the matter by the end of this year.

¶9

No coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to in the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused persons in the court below, whichever is earlier.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 27.2.2023/Abhishek Sri.

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arshad Hussain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arshad Hussain 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

Brajraj Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhani Lal @ Ram Dhani @ Doctor @ Guard Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra@ Chandra Kant Kori Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh @ Rajesh Rathour Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanu Tiwari @ Nagendra Tiwari and Anoterh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another