Worked out no, primer.
Prayer to quash proceedings rejected. No specific directions issued on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15301 of 2021
Applicant :- Tinku And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Learned counsel for the applicants files supplementary affidavit today, taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of Criminal Sessions Case NO 1127 of 2020 (State Vs. Tinku & others) including charge sheet dated 83.2020, under sections 323, 504, 324 IPC and section 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act and cognizance order dated 8.7.2020 arising out of Case Crime N. 22 of 2020, P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh pending in the court of Addl. District Judge/ Special Court, SC/ST Act, Aligarh.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 4.12.2021/RPD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the entire criminal proceedings including charge sheet should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether directions should be issued to the lower court for considering the bail prayer of the applicants.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherExplained¶11
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tinku And Another
State of U.P. and Another
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Gautam Chowdhary
Parties & counsel
