The High Court granted ten days to the applicant to surrender before the trial court, dismissing his two applications by not pressing them, and directed no coercive action during this period.
Ten days time granted to surrender before trial court; no coercive action to be taken meanwhile.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 0 .1 2 .2 0 2 1 | C482 No.402 of 2021 Hon’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Earlier, an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed on behalf of the applicant-Rahul Vishnoi. On 01.12.2021, during arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant had requested to dispose of the said application, filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by giving him (applicant) time to appear before the learned trial court. After hearing both the parties, the said prayer was accepted and on the request of the applicant, the said application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was dismissed, by giving the applicant ten days’ time to appear before the learned trial court. Now, two applications are filed on behalf of the applicant. In the first application, the applicant requested to direct the learned trial court to dispose of his interim bail application. The second application has been filed to grant the applicant another ten days’ time to appear before the trial court. |
||
| The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant’sfather, aged about79 years, |
| is not well and he has faced a heart |
|---|
| attack on 6thof this month. |
| Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. During arguments, the learned |
| counsel for the applicant submitted that the said two applications may be disposed of by granting another ten days’ time to the applicant to surrender before the concerned trial court. After availing sufficient opportunity to file written objections, the State has not filed written objections. However, |
| during the arguments, the learned counsel for the State opposed the said |
| submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant orally. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the request of the applicant is required to be allowed. Therefore, the said two applications are being dismissed as not pressed by granting further ten days’ time from today to the applicant to surrender before the learned trial court. Meanwhile, |
| i.e. ten days’ time from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges. ( Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.) 2 0 .1 2 .2 0 2 1 Neha |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an extension of time should be granted to the applicant to surrender before the trial court.
Whether coercive action should be taken against the applicant during the extended time.
Whether the bail application filed under Section 482 CrPC should be disposed of on merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul Vishnoi
State
Alok Kumar Verma
Neha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
