Partly allowed

Ram Bachan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2018CRLP/19833/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition sought quashing of FIR and restraint on arrest of three petitioners, one aged and disabled. The Court restrained arrest of the first petitioner pending the police report but dismissed the claims of the other three petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner no. 1 shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Petitions of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 dismissed.

Ram Bachan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19833 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Bachan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioners and with further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 24.06.2018 registered as case crime no. 108 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kasimabad, District Ghazipur.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is aged about 64 years and he is physically disabled, therefore, he is unable to properly move. It has next been submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the FIR no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the petitioners' complicity in the commission of the alleged offence qua the petitioner no. 1 hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA for the State submitted that the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶9

After having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned FIR as well as the other material brought on record, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶10

(i) Investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner no. 1 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to his cooperation during investigation.

¶11

(ii) As far as the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, the petition stand dismissed.

¶12

With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 24.7.2018 VG...M/A

Ram Bachan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bachan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Umar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Firasat Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

munni lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Satyendra Singh Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Veer Sain @ Vaisu @ Yash Pal and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhura Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others