Disposed

Ranjay Kumar Mishra and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2024A482/4565/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without adjudication on merit. Upon the applicant's concession, the court directed that if a bail application is filed within 30 days, it must be heard expeditiously and police should not take coercive action during this period.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; liberty to move bail petition within 30 days; police restrained from coercive action for 30 days.

Ranjay Kumar Mishra and Others vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44854

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4565 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjay Kumar Mishra And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Charge Sheet No.A-289/2020, dated 27.12.2020 in Criminal Case No.218 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.280 of 2020, under Section 352, 506 IPC, Police StationJaitpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar as also summoning order 07.04.2021 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Tanda/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

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 submitted 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.

¶9

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

¶10

The Apex Court, after considering the various pronouncements on the issues, in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave

¶11

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 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.

¶12

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 application 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, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations 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, they would not taken any coercive action against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 Vinay/-

¶16

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

Ranjay Kumar Mishra and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjay Kumar Mishra and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ashutosh Narayan Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ilahi Vs State of U.P.

Jagat Pal and Ors. Vs Deputy Director Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri and Ors.

Mohd. Musafir Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ramendra Singh @ Shankar Bhole Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lucknow and Another