Dismissed

Babbu @ Saniyal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2018A482/650/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge sheet under the Cow Slaughter Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the court dismissed the plea as no argument was presented on the merits of the evidence collected against the applicant who claimed to be incapable of committing the offence due to being crippled.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. No coercive action if applicant surrenders and applies for bail within 30 days or until bail disposal.

Babbu @ Saniyal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 650 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Babbu @ Saniyal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 30.10.2017 arising out of Case Crime No.254 of 2017 under section 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, P.S. Didauli, District Amroha and also simultaneously a prayer is made to quash the non-bailable warrant dated 8.12.2017 and the proceedings under section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. initiated against him in the said case.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated being a crippled person who could not have committed the said offence.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

Nothing has been argued on the point as to how the evidence collected at this stage by the Investigating Officer against the applicant does not constitute the offence under the aforesaid sections. This Court has no ground to disbelieve the evidence on record and does not find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is

¶11

earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. Order Date :- 12.1.2018 AU

Babbu @ Saniyal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babbu @ Saniyal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Achal Bind and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sunita Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dwarika Vs State

Javed and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nachhatradhari Alias Lachchhandhari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another