Disposed

Jaikaran Shukla and Anr. v. the State of U.P

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2025A482/2311/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the application as withdrawn regarding the deceased first applicant. Regarding the second applicant, the non-bailable warrant was kept in abeyance for 45 days, directing him to file a bail application which was to be decided expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

N.B.W. kept in abeyance for 45 days; applicant directed to move bail application; no coercive action till period expires.

Jaikaran Shukla and Anr. Vs the State of U.P — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10055

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2311 of 2015

¶4

Applicant :- Jaikaran Shukla And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Counsel for Applicant :- Amitabh Tripathi,Ravi Shanker Tewari,Sheo Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vishwakant Srivastava holding brief of Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant no.1- Jai Karan Shukla has died, therefore, he wants to withdraw the application in this regard.

¶8

Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn in relation to the applicant no.1- Jai Karan Shukla.

¶9

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with prayer to quash the impugned non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner and extended on 06.05.2015 by learned C.J.M., Court No.9, Raebareli in Case No.4212 A/2006 (State vs. Raju Shukla & others) under Sections 306, 386, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli and further be pleased to pass an appropriate order directing the learned lowers' court to consider and decide the bail application of the petitioners in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶10

It is submitted that applicant no.2 Jitu Shukla is innocent and has committed no offence. He was implicated falsely and after investigation charge sheet was filed with other co-accused persons though there is no evidence on record against him. Further submitted that other co-accused persons have already been acquitted after whole trial by the learned trial court but due to stay of proceedings by this Court, the trial of the present applicant could not proceed. It is also submitted that N.B.W. was issued against the applicant no.2 by order dated 06.05.2015 though he did not fail to appear before the learned court but it was on account of non information of the date in the case, therefore, requested to quash the entire proceedings of the case

¶11

including the order of N.B.W. dated 06.05.2015.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it appears expedient to keep the order of N.B.W. passed on 06.05.2015 in abeyance and applicant be directed to appear before the learned court and move bail application within a period of 45 days , the same shall be decided by the learned court as expeditiously as possible while keeping in view the facts of the case and the fact that other co-accused persons have already been acquitted in the same case.

¶14

Till the period of 45 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant no.2.

¶15

Accordingly, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Ashok Gupta

¶17

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

Jaikaran Shukla and Anr. v. the State of U.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaikaran Shukla and Anr. v. the State of U.P

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

Similar cases

Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Munsrif and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Mohsin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suresh and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Ors.