Dismissed

Waris v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2018CRLP/37014/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and stay of arrest. The court found no justifiable ground for interference given the discretionary immunity unless the offence is non-cognizable, refusing the prayer but allowing bail application within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by refusing prayer for quashimg or stay, leaving the petitioner to apply for bail within thirty days.

Waris Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37014 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Waris Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of State and have been taken through the record.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the FIR dated 30.11.2018 registered as case crime no. 674 of 2018 under section 3 (1) of U.P.Gangster & Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act 1986, Police Station Munda Pandey , District Moradabad.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is unnecessarily being harassed by the police personnel on the basis of false allegations made in the first information report. The petitioner has been subjected to undue harassment as the petitioner could not grease the palm of police personnel.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA contended that the contents of the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. There is sufficient material showing the complicity of the

¶9

From the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not exfacie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case, hence the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner is refused.

¶10

However, it is provided that if the petitioner appears before the court concerned within thirty days and applies for bail in the aforesaid case, his prayer for bail shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, in accordance with the provisions of Gangsters Act.

¶11

In the light of above observations, this petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.12.2018 Naim

Waris v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waris v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Anand Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sushila Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Anuj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Tripathi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vaibhav @ Shivendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others