Jagdish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jagdish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty as prayed for to the applicant; direction that if the applicant applies for bail before the Court concerned his prayer shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law; and that the Police Officer concerned shall not take coercive action against the applicant for 30 days from the date of the order or till he applies for bail, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 367/2013 discloses any offence, given the applicant's plea that no offence is disclosed and the prosecution was instituted mala fide for harassment, and whether the impugned summoning and revision orders should accordingly be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 BNSS is disposed of with liberty as prayed for, with a direction to the court below that if the applicant applies for bail before the Court concerned, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Taking note of the observations in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI and Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., the Court observed that the Police Officer concerned is expected not to take any coercive action against the applicant for a period of 30 days from the date of the order or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 16) | Application U/S 482 No. 7113 of 2016 | Jagdish Yadav (Applicant) v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Opposite Party) | Order dated 17.4.2025 | Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J. — Application to quash the summoning order dated 1.8.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 367/2013 (Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. Tambaur, District Sitapur) and the order dated 12.5.2016 passed in Revision No. 35/2015 was disposed of, not allowed, with liberty as prayed for and a direction that the applicant's bail prayer be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Taking note of Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51, and Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116, the Court further observed that the Police Officer concerned is expected not to take any coercive action against the applicant for 30 days or till he applies for bail, whichever is earlier.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21724

Court No. - 16

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7113 of 2016

Applicant :- Jagdish Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

List has been revised. No one appears for the applicant.

However, the Court has perused the records.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 12.5.2016 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Sitapur in Revision No. 35/2015 as well as summoning order dated 1.8.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 367/2013 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. Tambaur, District Sitapur.

It has been pleaded in the affidavit and the application that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Certain documents and statements in support of the contention have been referred in the application and the affidavit.

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The submissions made in the affidavit relate to disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 BNSS is disposed of with liberty as prayed for with a direction to the court below that if the applicant applies for bail before the Court concerned, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351: (2022) 10

SCC 51 and Musheer Alam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 , this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant applies for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Satyam

Digitally signed by :- SATYAM AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench