Single Judge of Allahabad High Court refused to quash summons order and charge-sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C., allowing liberty to apply for bail before trial court within two weeks.
Refused quashing; allowed liberty to apply for bail before trial court within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34359
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4032 of 2024
Applicant :- Ram Sajeevan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prasad Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 28.2.2024 issued by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Case Crime No.182 of 2023 under Section 323, 324, 506 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow, State vs. Ram Sajeevan and others as well as impugned charge-sheet no.1 of 2023, dated 30.11.2023.
Learned counsel for applicants, after arguing for some time, submits that the present application may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a bail application before the learned trial court which may be decided in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021, to which learned A.G.A. has no objection.
In view of the above, prayer for quashing the impugned proceeding is refused. So far as other prayer is concerned, it is provided that in case the applicants appear before the trial court within two weeks' from today and apply for bail, the same shall be decided expeditiously by the learned trial court, in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case
(supra).
The application is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Madhu
Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned summons order and charge-sheet under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 504 I.P.C. should be quashed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶8
Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Sajeevan And 3 Others
Karunesh Singh Pawar
Madhu Kumari
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Karunesh Singh Pawar and Madhu Kumari
Parties & counsel
