Disposed

Son Singh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024A482/17196/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 324, 504, 308 IPC. Counsel did not press the petition and sought liberty to apply for regular bail within two weeks. The High Court dismissed the application as not pressed and permitted bail application.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as not pressed; liberty granted to appear before trial court and file regular bail application within two weeks, to be decided per law.

Son Singh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:119056

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17196 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Son Singh Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants-Son Singh Yadav, Rahul Yadav and Anshul with the prayer to allow the present application and quash entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.3127 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 167 of 2023, u/s 323, 324, 504, 308 IPC, P.S. Jakhaura, District Lalitpur (State Vs. Son Singh Yadav and others) pending before C.J.M., Lalitpur as well as cognizance order dated 1.4.2024 and charge sheet dated 10.12.2023 with a further prayer that further proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicants during the pendency of the present application.

¶8

After arguments on merits at length learned counsel for the applicants states that he does not want to press the prayers made in the present petition. He states that the purpose of the applicants would be served if they are permitted to appear before the trial court within a period of two weeks from today and file a regular bail application.

¶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 as prayed for 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 appear and

¶12

apply for bail before the court concerned within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶13

The present application is disposed of.

¶14

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Gaurav Kuls

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Son Singh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Son Singh Yadav and 2 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmeet Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj vs State of Up and Another

Alok Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Poonam Devi and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Iliyash Siddiqui vs State of U.P. and Another