Disposed

Smt. Neelam Kumari Alias Neelam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2024/7750/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of charge sheets and summoning orders under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court declined the quashing prayer but granted liberty to file a bail and discharge application, directing their expedited disposal and observing a 30-day moratorium on coercive police action.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with liberty to file bail and discharge applications; police directed not to take coercive action for 30 days.

Smt. Neelam Kumari Alias Neelam Verma Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59958

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7750 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt. Neelam Kumari Alias Neelam Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akshay Srivastava,Ankur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:-

¶7

"Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 07.05.2023 and impugned summoning order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki under sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and quash the proceedings pending before the above mentioned court in the case of State v. Jagdeesh Verma and Another."

¶8

After arguing, at some length, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that liberty may be given to the applicant to file bail application before the trial court which may be decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 as also to prefer a discharge application before the court below and the same may be decided expeditiously.

¶9

Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicant apply for bail before the Court concerned, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶11

Liberty is also granted to the applicant to move discharge application before the court below and the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶12

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 Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant apply for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 2.9.2024/Vinay/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Neelam Kumari Alias Neelam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam Kumari Alias Neelam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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 Bhawan Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shivam Singh @ Sanju Kinnar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Gaurav Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Vaibhav Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. in the Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Nihal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Waseem Ahmad @ Waseem Akram Vs Stata of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others