Ballu Mishra @ Rajkumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 147 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17020 of 2020
 

 
Applicant :- Bullu Mishra @ Rajkumar Mishra
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kant Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

Re: Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 03 of 2021

Heard.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted to correct the cause title by deleting the word "a" from the name of "Ballu" and insert the word "u". The correct cause title shall read as "Bullu Mishra @ Rajkumar Mishra".

Correction application is allowed.

Necessary corrections have been incorporated in the order dated 24.11.2020. The Correct order shall read as under:

"Heard Sri Vinod Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed seeking the following relief:

"to quash the charge sheet no. 31/2020 dated 14.03.2020 and cognizance taking order dated 18.09.2020 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra along with entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8071/2020 (State Vs. Sandeep Dubey and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 58/2020, under Section 353 I.P.C., Police Station Chopan District Sonbhadra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra."

Learned A.G.A submits that charge-sheet has been filed after collecting evidence which establishes the complicity of the applicant in the offence. Prima facie commission of offence by the applicant is made out from the material in the record.

Faced with this, learned counsel for the applicant does not press the reliefs sought in the present applicant. He recasts his relief and submits that the applicant shall appear before the trial court and apply for bail.

The only prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the bail application of the applicant may be decided expeditiously.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this application is disposed of with the following directions:

(1) The applicant shall appear before the trial court within a period of two months and apply for bail.

(2) In case the bail application is filed within the aforesaid period, the trial court shall decide the bail application expeditiously in the light of law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported at 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment entered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P reported at 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).

(3) For a period of two months no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

(4) In case the applicant does not apply for bail in the aforesaid period, this order shall stand automatically recalled without recourse to this Court. The trial court shall proceed thereafter in accordance with law."

The order dated 24.11.2020 containing the errors shall be deleted from the uploaded website and shall be replaced by the correct order. However, the order passed on 24.11.2020 containing the errors shall remain in the ordersheet/record.

Order Date :- 5.1.2021

Dhananjai