Disposed

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

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2023A482/8056/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejecting the prayer to quash summons as it was not pressed by the applicant. It directed that if accused surrender and apply for bail within 45 days, the matter will be decided expeditiously, staying coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing dismissed; direction to expedite bail consideration if accused surrender within 45 days; stay on coercive action.

Ratan Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8056 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ratan Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nagendra Bahadur Singh,Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Ratan Yadav, Ramesh Yadav, Munna Yadav and Bhola Yadav with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 05.01.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 19, Deoria as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 8168 of 2021 (Smt. Kalawati Devi Vs. Ratan Yadav and others), under Section 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Baghanchghat, District Deoria pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 19, Deoria and with further that further proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicants, during the pendency of the present application.

¶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 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 45 days from

¶12

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 :- 3.3.2023 M. ARIF

¶16

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Yadav and 3 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

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

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

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