Dismissed

Mehtab v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2021A482/10547/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the charge sheet and consequential proceedings. The court found cognizable offences disclosed and rejected the quash prayer. It further declined to issue specific bail directions, relying on existing Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge sheet and consequential proceedings was rejected; no specific directions were issued regarding bail.

Mehtab Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10547 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mehtab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

The present Criminal Misc. Application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against Charge Sheet dated 9.10.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 3.12.2018 in Criminal Case No. 2863 of 2081, arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2018, U/S. 420, 506 I.P.C. and Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Nehtaur, District Bijnor, Pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Birnor.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶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

As this Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations and reliability of the material collected during the course of investigation, the prayer to quash the charge-sheet and the consequential proceeding is rejected.

¶9

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

¶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 directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issue by the Apex Court.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.

¶12

Dt. 02.11.2021

¶13

K.C.

Mehtab v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehtab 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

Arun Kumar Kori Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nihal Vs State of Up and Another

Chandra Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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