Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2020CRLP/1422/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashment of an FIR under the U.P. Gangsters Act as the petition was not being pressed further. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a regular bail application before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file regular bail application.

Sanjay Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1422 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahabir Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mahabir Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR dated 24.12.2019 in respect of Crime No. 0579 of 2019 for the offence under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters Act, P.S. Karchana, District Prayagraj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a small employee working in a private firm and has nothing to do with any criminal activity. He submits that earlier by showing one case against him, he has been unnecessarily made accused and now using the said case provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act have been applied against him. He submits that petitioner intends to file regular bail application before the trial court and he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid liberty. He, however, submits that direction may be issued to the trial court to decide the bail application of the petitioner either on the same day or at least by the next date so that the petitioner may not suffer any injury including lost of his job.

¶8

State counsel has no objection insofar as withdrawal of the petition is concerned. He, however, submits that discretion be given to the trial court to decide the bail application in accordance with law.

¶9

Considering the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶10

Petitioner is permitted to withdraw this writ petition with the aforesaid liberty.

¶11

Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any regular bail application by the petitioner before the competent court of jurisdiction, the said court shall decide the same in accordance with law considering all the aspects of the matter.

¶12

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent court to act in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.2.2020

¶14

Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Pandey 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Damodar and 2 Ors.

Shanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Reena and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Marut Nandan Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Anjana Chaudhary and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others