Lavkush Tiwari @ Bindeshwari ... vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2814 ALL

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2814 ALL
Judgement Date : 22 February, 2021

Allahabad High Court

Lavkush Tiwari @ Bindeshwari ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 February, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4142 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Lavkush Tiwari @ Bindeshwari Tiwari
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Suresh Bahadur Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record.

Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to grant two month's time for appearing before the court and execution of non-bailable warrant dated 06.01.2021 may be suspended for at least two months.

Submission made by the learned counsel for applicant is that the applicant had met with an accident on the date when the judgment was to be delivered and he could not appear before the court below to hear the judgment therefore, NWB has been issued against the applicant. Prayer is made that for two months, the NWB issued against the applicant may be suspended.

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has shown the judgment, which has been passed against the other co-accused in this case on 6.1.2021 and in that judgment the accused is also held guilty under sections 147, 148, 302 read with section 149, 307 read with section 149, 308 read with section 149, 336 read with section 149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act , therefore, it is argued by him that the applicant is deliberately avoiding to appear before the court as he has been held guilty.

In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. Since the applicant has been held guilty, he has to appear before the court so that hearing could be done on quantum of punishment.

Accordingly, the application stands rejected.

Order Date :- 22.2.2021