Aditya Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Court refused to quash the F.I.R. as a prima facie cognizable offence is made out. However, directed that bail application filed within two weeks shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously by courts below.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for quashing refused; directive to consider bail within two weeks expeditiously.
What the court decided
Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 32766 of 2018
Petitioner :- Aditya Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Daksha Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 186 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 P.O.C.S.O. Act, P.S. Phoolpur, District Allahabad.
From the perusal of the impugned F.I.R. it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein a prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference in the F.I.R. therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
However, after perusing the record and considering the nature of the allegations it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the court concerned within two weeks from today and applies for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below.
With this direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. should be quashed under Sections 376, 506 IPC and 5/6 P.O.C.S.O. Act given prima facie cognizable offence.
Matter to be kept in view and bail petition to be considered expeditiously.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Aditya Pratap Singh
- respondent
State Of U.P.
- respondent
2 Others
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLP/32766/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court