Partly allowed

Keshwanand Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Uttarakhand HC24 Oct 2013C482/245/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismissed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application as 'not pressed'. The court instead directed the lower court to decide the applicant's bail on the same day, noting his role as a TV reporter and his surrender undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as not pressed; direction to CJM Haridwar to decide bail application on same day subject to surrender.

Keshwanand Bhatt Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application No. 245 of 2009

¶3

(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

¶4

Keshwanand Bhatt .….…… Applicant

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Uttarakhand and another ……. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, present for the applicant. Mr. S.A.Siddiqui, learned AGA, assisted by Mr. S.S.Adhikari, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent no.1.

¶8

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶9

The applicant, by means of present petition/application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the cognizance order dated 08.10.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, charge-sheet dated 21.06.2008 and Criminal Case No. 6735 of 2008, State vs. Sushant and others, under sections 147, 332, 323, 353 and 352 IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

¶10

First information report was lodged by the informant/ respondent no. 2 which was registered as case crime no. 278 of 2008 at P.S. Kotwali, District Haridwar on 26.04.2008, under Sections 147, 323, 332 and 353 IPC. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicant for the selfsame offences including Section 352 IPC.

¶11

A bare reading of first information report suggests that prima facie offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 352 and

¶12

¶13

353 IPC were made out against the applicant. It was clear in the first information report itself that none of the companions of the informant sustained injuries, so as to attract the ingredients of Section 332 IPC (voluntary causing hurt to public servant).

¶14

It was alleged in the first information report that the people of Bramhapuri mohalla surrounded various forest officials and deterred public servants from performing their duties. When they were persuaded not to do so, they used criminal force. The applicant was also present in the crowd, but as a news reporter.

¶15

It is stated in para 4 of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that the applicant is a TV reporter working in a news channel ‘D TV’ having it’s office at Haridwar. The applicant went there for the coverage of news for his news channel. The only mistake that he committed is that he mingled in the crowd and thereby incurred the wrath of the informant, who lodged FIR against him also.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant did not press the main relief in his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and instead, made a prayer that the bail application of the applicant be directed to be decided on the same day, subject to his surrender. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and his role as a TV reporter, the innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant is worth accepting.

¶17

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is therefore, dismissed as ‘not pressed’, but with the direction upon learned CJM, Haridwar to decide the bail application of the accused-applicant on the same day, subject to his surrender.

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant will surrender before the Court concerned on or before 20^th November, 2013.

¶20

(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 24.10.2013

¶21

Kaushal

¶22

Keshwanand Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshwanand Bhatt v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

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

Vivek Goyal and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Puneet Goyal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Badre Alam Vs Shafeek Ahamad

Ram Lal and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Anis and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Kailash Chandra Arya @ Kannu and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.