Disposed

Awanish Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2024/5376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appearance application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant abandoned the plea for quashing. The court disposed of the application granting liberty to move a bail application within 30 days, directing the lower court to decide it expeditiously and restraining police from coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to apply for bail within 30 days; directed lower court to decide expeditiously; restrained police from coercive action.

Awanish Chandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42893

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5376 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Awanish Chandra Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dushyant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶8

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue:-

¶9

i. quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.03.2023, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, District Pratapgarh, in Crl. Case No. 5047/2023, State Vs Avinash Chandra Pandey, contained as Annexure No. 1, to this petition.

¶10

ii. quash the impugned Charge Sheet No. 104/2022, filed in Case Crime No. 75/2022, U/s- 420, 177, IPC, Police Station Mandhata, District- Pratapgarh, contained as Annexure No. 2, to this petition."

¶11

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record as also taking note of the same in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 , on being confronted, after arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicant may be permitted to move bail application, before the court concerned and suitable directions may be issued that same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in grant of aforesaid prayer.

¶13

The Apex Court, after considering the various pronouncements on the issues,

¶14

in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021 has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need to be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.

¶15

Keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicant applies for bail before the Court below within 30 days from today, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶16

Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observation made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra), this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officers concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not taken any coercive action against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 12.6.2024

¶19

Jyoti/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Awanish Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awanish Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Kripal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Autar Sharma @ Pintu and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Mahesh Alias Mahesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sri Niwas and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sanjay Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Home Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Guruvinder Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another