Dismissed

Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Mar 2021ABA/38/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court disposed of anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. holding that due to Amendment Act No.20 of 2020, applicant has alternate efficacious remedy. Court directed concerned Court not to issue any process against applicant for twelve days to protect applicant's interest.

What did the court decide?

Directs concerned Court not to issue any process against applicant for twelve days pending alternate remedy.

Umesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand — Anticipatory Bail | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			ABA No.38 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Khu lbe, J. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Aditya Singh and Mr. Pranab Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Government Advocate assisted by Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy. A.G. for the State. The applicant has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in FIR No.128 of 2018 dated 01.11.2018 lodged under Sections 147,148,149, 386,427,452 & 506 of IPC, registered at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By virtue of amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttarakhand Amendment) 2019 brought about by the State in Act No.20 of 2020, the affected person is entitled to bail apprehending his arrest under the provision of Section 438 Cr. P.C. The said Act has come into force w.e.f 11.08.2020. Accordingly, I do not find it appropriate to proceed with the matter, because the applicant has an alternate efficacious remedy. However, in order to protect the applicant’s interest, the concerned Court is directed not to issue any process against the applicant for a period of twelve days from today.

¶2

In case any such application is
moved by the applicant within the stipulated period, the concerned Court will decide the same as per law and after hearing both the parties, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 12 days. With these observations, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of finally. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Registry is directed to issue a certified copy of this order, today itself, to the learned counsel for the parties, as per rules.
( R.C. Kh u lbe, J.) 04 .0 3 .2 0 2 1 Sukhbant

In case any such application is

moved
by
the
applicant
within
the
stipulated period, the concerned Court
will decide the same as per law and after
hearing both the parties, at the earliest,
preferably within a period of 12 days.
With these observations, the instant
anticipatory bail application is disposed
of finally.
Pending application, if any, stands
disposed of.
Registry is
directed
to issue
a
certified copy of this order, today itself,
to the learned counsel for the parties, as
per rules.

( R.C. Kh u lbe, J.)
04 .0 3 .2 0 2 1
Sukhbant

Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Radha Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secratary Home

Naushad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohit Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kuldeep Vs State of Uttarakhand

Harvel Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand