Dismissed

Naemussakalain Sultan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2021A482/16000/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a charge-sheet and cognizance, the Court held that allegations disclose a cognizable offence supported by investigation material. The application to quash was rejected. Regarding bail, the Court declined to issue directions as the Apex Court guidelines were sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash charge-sheet and cognizance rejected; no specific bail directions issued to trial court.

Naemussakalain Sultan and Another Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16000 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Naemussakalain Sultan And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application has been file for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 13.05.2021 and cognizance order dated 14.07.2021 submitted in connection with Case Crime No. 162 of 2021, under Sections 354, 341, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Barra, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶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 applicants.

¶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

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 directions 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 :- 1.12.2021 shiv

¶13

Digitally signed by Justice Gautam Chowdhary Date: 2021.12.02 10:40:19 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naemussakalain Sultan and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naemussakalain Sultan and Another 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

Shabir Ali and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manzoor Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Susheel Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afjal Vs State of U.P.