Disposed

Rajan Mishra @ Pappu @ Sharvendu Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024A482/23407/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant and related proceedings. The court directed a 15-day stay on coercive action if the applicant moves the trial court, and refused to entertain further repetitive exemption applications.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against the applicant for 15 days if he approaches the trial court to recall the order; repetitive exemption applications to be dismissed.

Rajan Mishra @ Pappu @ Sharvendu Mishra vs State of U.P… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:151892

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23407 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajan Mishra @ Pappu @ Sharvendu Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pravita Singh,Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the Non Bailable Warrant order dated 26.08.2021 and 14.10.2021, the proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C., notices issued to the Surety, letter issued to the Superintendent of Police, Ballia and the proceeding under Section 299 Cr.P.C. dated 11.04.2023, issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ballia in S.S.T. No. 120 of 2014, titled as State v. Rajan Mishra, arising out of Case Crime No. 503 of 2014, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Haldi, District Ballia.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that impugned order is against the facts and law. The applicant had no knowledge about the proceedings initiated against him due to which he could not appear on the date fixed by the trial Court, hence, non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A has opposed.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and move appropriate

¶11

application before the trial Court for recalling the impugned order, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of 15 days or till the applicant move an application before the trial Court, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Further, the Court shall not entertain the fictitious and repetitive personal exemption application, and if filed, the same shall be dismissed with reasonable costs.

¶12

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 A. Tripathi

¶14

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajan Mishra @ Pappu @ Sharvendu Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Mishra @ Pappu @ Sharvendu Mishra 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhole vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aswani Tyagi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niraj @ Banti Shahi and 3 Others vs State of Upand Another

Vikash Singh @ Ashu Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Jugul Kishore Sharma vs State of Up and Another