Dismissed

Beerbal @ Balveer and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2019CRLP/9641/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging offences under IPC Sections 376, 354, 323, and 506. The court, finding cognizable offences made out, refused to quash the FIR but directed expedited bail consideration for petitioner no. 1 upon surrender and prohibited arrest of petitioner no. 2 pending the police report.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; bail to be considered expeditiously on appearance/surrender within 30 days; petitioner no. 2 not to be arrested till police report.

Beerbal @ Balveer and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9641 of 2019 Petitioner :- Beerbal @ Balveer And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

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

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 03.04.2019 lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioners in Case Crime No. 67 of 2019, under Sections 376, 354, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Jahangirpur, District- Bulandshahr.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶5

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.

¶6

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶7

However, it is provided that if the petitioner no. 1 (Beerbal @ Balveer) appears or surrenders before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail in the aforesaid case, his prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶8

It is further directed that the petitioner no. 2 Santosh (Mother-in-law) shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that she shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶9

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 15.4.2019/Sharad/-

Beerbal @ Balveer and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beerbal @ Balveer and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karishma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Jadaun and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramsurat @ Rampratap Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Duryodhan @ Jodhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Chandra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others