Allahabad High Court
Ved Prakash Verma Alias Bittu Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 September, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146533 Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 1082 of 2024 Applicant :- Ved Prakash Verma Alias Bittu Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Yadav,Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Tiwari,G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Applicant has filed this application under section 483 Cr.P.C. to challenge the impugned Non Bailable Warrant dated 05.02.2024 as well as order dated 27.03.2024 in Criminal Case No.4406 of 2023 (Old No.6273 of 2021), titled State Vs. Sneha Verma and others arising out of Case Crime No.1983 of 2019, under sections 147, 149, 307, 452, 323, 379 I.P.C., Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
Shri Sandeep Mishra, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama in the Court today on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
On 2.8.2024, following order was passed :-
"Learned counsel for the applicant submits that being an accused in Case No.11971 of 2021 (State vs. Sneha and Others), an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.24163 of 2021 was preferred before this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings, wherein vide order dated 25.2.2022, the further proceedings before the trial court were stayed. He submits that thereafter, the applicant-accused moved an application seeking exemption from personal appearance and the same was dismissed vide order dated 5.2.2024, and because of his absence non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Learned counsel further submits that proceedings under section 82-83 Cr.P.C. were also initiated, but according to him once the proceedings were stayed by this Court, therefore, no effective proceedings were to take place, hence, the presence of the accused was not necessary, and the extreme order of issuance of arrest warrants against him is bad in law, particularly, when the applicant is represented by his counsel.
That apart, learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that in another application filed for transfer, bearing No.124 of 2023, vide order dated 24.02.2023, the accused were granted liberty to appear through their counsel, therefore, the coercive steps issued by the trial court subsequent to the said order is nothing, but violation of the directions issued by this Court.
The above sequence is not disputed by learned counsel for the complainant, who has argued that even if, the proceedings were stayed by this court the accused were required to appear, as their personal appearance was never exempted. According to him, once the accused himself had moved an application for exemption from personal appearance after stay of the proceedings, it means they are aware of the conditions of putting in appearance before the trial court.
Be that as it may, the proceedings are not making any progress because of the stay order granted by this court, therefore, in this background, a period of ten days is granted to the accused to put in appearance before trial Court, and on his appearance, he shall be released on interim regular bail subject to his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Put up this case as fresh on 09.09.2024."
Today, learned counsel for the applicant-accused fairly states that the above order has not been complied with.
Resultantly, the application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.9.2024 Shiv