Disposed

Ajay Awasthi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2023A482/7555/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application seeking to quash an NBW and direct expedient bail hearing. The court dismissed the prayer to quash as not pressed but directed courts to consider bail expeditiously if applicants surrender within two weeks, during which no coercive action shall be taken.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed prayer to quash as not pressed; directed bail to be decided expeditiously upon surrender within two weeks; stayed coercive action during that period.

Ajay Awasthi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7555 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Awasthi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Prateek Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants Ajay Awasthi, Vijay Awasthi and Gopal Awasthi with the prayer to quash the NBW dated 04.10.2021 passed by M.M.VIII, Kanpur Nagar and direct the courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicants expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 922 relating to Case Crime No. 183 of 2015 (State Vs. Ajay Awasthi and others), under Section 427, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Juhi, District Kanpur Shahr and with a further prayer to direct the Authority concern to not take any coercive action against the applicants.

¶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 and staying the further 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 and staying the further proceedings of the aforesaid case is dismissed as not pressed.

¶11

However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

¶12

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 two 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 applicants.

¶13

It it 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.

¶14

The present application is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.3.2023 M. ARIF

¶16

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Awasthi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Awasthi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Raj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Prasad Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jameel and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gorakh Tiwari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another