CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(1999) 10 AHC CK 0116

Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel and Anr. vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 15 October 1999

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.K.Mitra, CJ
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5052 of 1999, with 2036/99 and 5271/99
Download PDFOriginal PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 354 words

N. K. Mitra, C.J.—Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the facts and circumstances of the case. I find that there is no merit in the application.

2.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the C.B.C.I.D. has yet submitted proper charge sheet and has not concluded the investigation, they are protected by the order of Hon''ble I.M. Quddusi, J. dated 13th October. 1999, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 642 of 1998, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said order has subsequently been vacated and the said Crl. Misc. Case has subsequently been dismissed. After that another writ application was filed as Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 18394 of 1998 which was allowed and the bail of the petitioner was cancelled

by Hon''ble J,C, Gupia, J. vide order dated 21st May, 1999, which is Annexure4 to the application. Against the said order of Hon''ble J.C. Gupta J. dated 21st May, 1999,the petitioners moved the Apex Court, as it appears from Annexure5 to the application, and their application for Special Petition for Leave to appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 4.10.1999, which reads as under:

"We do not think that any justice would have been done in the matter considering that the bail application was disposed of on the very day on which the application ia that behalf was served upon the special counsel for the State. The interests of justice, therefore, do not require us to interfere. The Special Leave petition is dismissed.

4.

In such view of the matter, specially in view of the order of the Apex Court, no case for interference under section 482 Cr. P.C. is made out.

5.

In the result, the application stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. However, I make it clear that the petitioner should surrender before the Court concerned forthwith and if they apply for bail their bail application should be heard expeditiously.

6.

By this order other connected applications are also dismissed.