Inarmol and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Inarmol and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Instant Section 482 Cr.P.C. application disposed of on counsel's prayer without adjudication of the quashing prayer; court below directed to decide the applicants' pending application within three months of production of the certified copy of this order; interim assurance that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants till disposal of the said application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 25.04.2014 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra, and the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No. 416 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2018 (Sections 306, 201 I.P.C.), ought to be quashed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The court below is directed to decide the application pending before it (filed 11.09.2024) within a period of three months from the date the certified copy of this order is produced before it.

Key takeaways

Till disposal of the said pending application before the court below, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the instant matter.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Tej Pratap Tiwari, J., Court No. 82) disposed of APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 39755 of 2024 (Inarmol and another v. State of U.P. and another) without adjudicating the merits of the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 25.04.2014 of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra and the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No. 416 of 2023 (State vs. Inarmol and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2018, under Sections 306, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra. The applicants, made accused under Section 446 Cr.P.C. as sureties for the bail of accused Jitendra Vishwakarma, through counsel prayed for disposal of their own application filed on 11.09.2024 before the court below, pending since more than one year; the learned AGA raised no vehement objection. The Court directed the court below to decide that pending application within three months from production of the certified copy of the order, disposed of the instant application, and clarified that till such disposal no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39755 of 2024

Inarmol And Another

.....Applicant(s)

Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 82

HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.

Heard Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the records.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned order dated 25.04.2014 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra as well as entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No. 416 of 2023 (State vs. Inarmol and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2018, under Sections 306, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra, pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants have been made accused under Section 446 Cr.P.C., wherein they had stood as sureties for the bail granted to Jitendra Vishwakarma, who happens to be the accused in the matter in question.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants innocently prays for disposal of the application filed before the Court below which is at page no. 28 of the application.

A bare perusal of the application in question shows that the said application has been filed on 11.09.2024 before the court below and as stated by the learned counsel for the applicants, which is still pending. Therefore, learned court below should decide the said application pending since more than one year.

On the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the applicants, learned

A482 No. 39755 of 2024

2

AGA does not made any vehement objection.

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the rights of the persons to get their grievance redressed by the competent court, it would be expedient to direct the court below to decide the application pending before it within a period of three months from the date of the certified copy of this order is produced before it.

with these observations the instant application is disposed of.

It is made clear that till disposal of the said application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the instant matter.

(Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)

October 30, 2025

Manoj

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad