Jitendra @ Jitendra Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10645 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Tanda, Ambedkar Nagarin Criminal Case No. 740 of 2014(Old No. 346 of 2011) (State Vs. Jitendra and others), arsing out of Case Crime No. 264 of 2010 under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Jaitpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar.

¶3The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶4From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jitendra @ Jitendra Kumar Yadav And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶5At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are ready to surrender before the Trial Court for obtaining bail and for that some protection may be granted to them.

¶6However considering the aforesaid alternative prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that the applicants shall surrender before the concerned Trial Court within 30 days from today and in case they apply for bail, the bail application of the applicants shall be disposed of expeditiously by the Trial Court in accordance with law and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

¶7For the period of 30 days from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the concerned Trial Court, whichever is earlier, applicants shall not be arrested in the above case.

¶8With the above observations and directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

December 16, 2025 ADY A482 No. 10645 of 2025 (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench