Partly allowed

Kishan Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2023A482/7151/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contested Section 482 CrPC application to quash summoning orders and Warrants, the applicant's counsel did not press the quashing prayer. The court dismissed the quashing prayer as not pressed but directed that bail shall be considered expeditiously if the applicant surrenders within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quash dismissed as not pressed; directed that bail to be considered expediently if applicant surrenders within 3 weeks.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7151 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Kishan Kumar Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Majahar Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Majahar Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Kishan Kumar Rai, with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 5.4.2010 as well as non bailable warrant dated 23.1.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Allahabad in Case No. 2006 of 2010, State vs. Kishan Kumar Rai, arising out of Case Crime No. 10 of 2010, under Section 160(2) of Railway Act, P.S. RPF/PBH Pratapgarh Junction Railway Station, District Allahabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Allahabad and with the further prayer to stay the effect and operation of the impugned summoning order as well as non bailable warrant, during pendency of the present case.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant states that the purpose of the applicant would suffice if an order is passed directing the trial court to decide the bail application of the applicant, as expeditiously as possible. He further states that although the prayer has been made for quashing of the summoning order and the non bailable warrant in the case and for stay of the said impugned orders but he does not press the same. He further states that the applicant shall raise all the questions before the trial court.

¶9

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

¶10

In view of the above, the prayer for quashing of summoning order and non bailable warrants 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 applicant, it is directed that if the accused-applicant surrenders before the trial court and applies for bail within three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Till the aforesaid period, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶12

It it clarified that if the accused-applicant does not appear before the court concerned by the said date, the court concerned shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶13

The present application is disposed of.

¶14

(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 3.3.2023 Naresh

¶15

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

Kishan Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Kumar Rai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagroop Singh Vs State of U.P.

Heera Lal Vs State

Changu Lal and Another Vs State

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

Ratan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harish Kumar Alias Shankar Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others