Dismissed

Anurag Bajpai and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2021A482/10107/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge/application court rejected the prayer to quash the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. The court declined to issue specific bail directives, referring to Apex Court guidelines, and disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash charge sheet rejected; no specific bail directions issued; application disposed off.

Anurag Bajpai and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10107 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anurag Bajpai And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been filed for discharging the applicants from present the charge sheet dated 16.4.2019, arising out of case crime no. 469 of 2018, under sections 147, 354-A, 354-B, 294, 323, 501, 504 IPC, section 8 POCSO Act and section 3(1) X of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rasoolabad. District Kapur Dehat as well as cognizance order dated 26/11/2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no. 14, Kanpur Dehaat.

¶7

On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the first information report disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support from the material collected during the course of investigation on the basis whereof the police has laid a charge sheet against the applicant.

¶8

At this Court, in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C., is not required to assess the correctness of the allegation and the reliability of the material collected during the course of investigation, the prayer to quash the charge sheet and the consequential proceeding is rejected.

¶9

At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.

¶10

As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.

¶12

Order Date :- 8.11.2021

¶13

RPD

Anurag Bajpai and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Bajpai and 3 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hameeda Rahman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Baijnath @ Baiju Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khushboo (Minor) Vs State of U.P.and Another

Nitish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Asfak Vs State of U.P. and Another