Partly allowed

Nirmala and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Othrs

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2019CRLP/10578/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an F.I.R. alleging false harassment in a serious crime case. The court rejected the quashing plea but granted interim bail to specific petitioners and allowed a bail application window.

What did the court decide?

F.I.R. quashing refused; interim bail granted to petitioner nos. 1 and 2; remaining petitioners given 30 days to apply for bail.

Nirmala and 4 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10578 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Nirmala And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Othrs Counsel for Petitioner :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ansar Ahma d, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 28.03.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 63 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354(ka), 376, 511 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police StationEkdil, District-Etawah.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed on the basis of false allegations made against them while prima facie no cognizable offence is made out pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 Km. Muskan Balmiki. Hence the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G..A contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶9

From the perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners are involved in the serious offences hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the

¶10

petitioners. The prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is refused.

¶11

The petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶12

However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

It is further provided that the petitioner nos.1 and 2, Nirmala and Rubi shall be released on interim bail till the final disposal of the regular bail application.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.4.2019 Rahul.

Nirmala and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Othrs

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

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saweez and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Praveen Kumar Singh @ Praveen and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Deepak Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others