Disposed

Sonu @ Deepak v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024A482/25633/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court stayed coercive action for 15 days, directing the applicant to approach the trial court expeditiously to recall the Non Bailable Warrant orders issued due to non-appearance. The court also warned against repetitive exemption applications.

What did the court decide?

Coercive action stayed for 15 days; applicant directed to apply for recalling warrant in trial court.

Sonu @ Deepak vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:170999

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25633 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sonu @ Deepak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Raj 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 orders dated 16.11.2019 to 25.06.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge13, Agra in Special Session Trial No. 193 of 2017, titled as State v. Sonu @ Deepak, arising out of Case Crime No. 906 of 2016, under Section 15 D.A.A. Act, P.S. New Agra, District Agra, pending in before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-13, Agra.

¶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 nonbailable warrant orders, 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

6. The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 A. Tripathi

¶14

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶15

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

Sonu @ Deepak v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Deepak v. State of Up 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

Jitendra Rajput @ Baura vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola Nath Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Geeta Devi and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mithlesh Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anuj Kumar Rai vs State of Up and Another