Allowed

Atul Kumar Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024/5947/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant challenged an order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside a CJM's cognizance order. Counsel withdrew the plea on merit, seeking only leave to file bail. Court allowed liberty to move bail within 30 days, directing expeditious hearing, and stayed police coercive action for that period pending bail.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to move bail within 30 days for expeditious hearing; police coercive action stayed.

Atul Kumar Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45996

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5947 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Atul Kumar Mishra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record.

¶7

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

¶8

"i. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased that the order dated 03.07.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Bahraich in Criminal Case No. 8048/18 (State Vs. Ram Kumar Mishra), by which learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance on the charge sheet no. 01 / 2018 in case crime no. 0064/2018 Under Section-363, 1.P.C Police Station- Huzoorpur, District- Bahraich may be set aside in the interest of justice."

¶9

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 applicants submit that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicants 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, 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 applicants apply 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.

¶14

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 applicants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not taken any coercive action against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 5.7.2024 Anuj Singh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Atul Kumar Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kumar Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. 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

Aaftab Ahmad @ Babloo and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mridula Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Amit Kumar Azad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajesh @ Subedar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Praduman Kumar Mishra @ Babbu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amrendra ( as Per Fir Amrendra Rawat Alias Gupta ) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another