Bhoora vs. State Of Up And Another
Held
The High Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the applicant's inability to appear due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. The Court directed that if the applicant appears before the court within 15 days from the date of the order and applies for the recall of the non-bailable warrant, his application shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously. Until the disposal of the applicant's motion to recall the warrant, no coercive steps shall be taken against him. The application was disposed of in terms of these observations. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality of the initial warrant issuance but provided a procedural remedy.
Facts
The applicant, Bhoora, sought to quash a non-bailable warrant issued against him on September 24, 2020, by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Hathras, in GST No. 11 of 2019, under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant had been granted bail on November 2, 2017, in a previous case under the same Act. He contended that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown, he could not appear before the trial court. His application for appearance on September 24, 2020, was rejected, leading to the issuance of the non-bailable warrant. The State was the opposite party.
Key Issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the applicant's application for appearance and subsequently issuing a non-bailable warrant, considering the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown restrictions, thereby violating the applicant's right to appear before the court and seek relief? Contentions of the applicant: The applicant argued that the issuance of the non-bailable warrant was unjust given the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, which prevented his physical appearance before the court. He relied on the fact that he had been granted bail in a prior case under the same Act and that his application for appearance on September 24, 2020, was rejected without proper consideration of the prevailing conditions. Contentions of the revenue or State: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19397 of 2020 Applicant :- Bhoora Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State.
By means of this application, the applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 24.09.2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Hathras in GST No.11 of 2019, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras, whereby non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant.
Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was granted bail on 02.11.2017 in Case Crime No.340 of 2017, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Further contention is that during Covid-19 Pandemic, the trial court has started trial but due to Lockdown, the applicant could not appear before the court and filed application for his appearance before the court on 24.09.2020 but the same was rejected an
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.