SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.
Umakant Singh - Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. - 2838 of 2024
Decided On : 01-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rabindra Bahadur Singh
For the Opposite Party : G.A.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an applicant can seek bail while not pursuing the quashing of a complaint, and that bail applications should be considered expeditiously in accordance with established legal precedents.

Headnote:

QUASHING - COMPLAINT CASE - The court addressed an application for quashing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant chose not to pursue the quashing but sought bail, leading the court to direct that the bail application be considered expeditiously, referencing the precedent set in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI. The court also provided protection from coercive action during the bail process.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed for quashing the proceedings of a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but later decided not to pursue this and instead sought bail.

Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the applicant's request to surrender and apply for bail, deciding to dispose of the application with directions for expeditious consideration of the bail application.

Issues: Whether the applicant could quash the complaint proceedings and what directions should be given regarding the bail application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of bail applications, referencing the legal principles established in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, which advocate for expeditious handling of such matters.

Final Decision: The application was disposed of with directions for the applicant to surrender and apply for bail, ensuring no coercive action would be taken for three weeks or until the bail application was resolved.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1099 of 2019 (Brij Mohan vs. Umakant), u/s 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Manduwadeeh, District Varanasi as well as summoning order dated 18.9.2019, pending before Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press the prayer for quashing the impugned proceeding and the applicant wants to surrender and apply for bail if suitable direction is issued for expeditious disposal of his bail application.

4. Considering the aforesaid submission, the present application is disposed of with a direction that if the applicant surrenders and moves application for bail before the court below within a period of three weeks from today, then his bail application shall be considered in view of the law laid down in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

5. For a period of three weeks or till disposal of the bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top