Dismissed

Nitish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2021A482/21906/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judicial order dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge-sheet. The court found allegations supported investigation material and refused quashing. It also declined to issue specific bail directions, relying on existing Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge-sheet and cognizance order rejected; specific bail directions not issued.

Nitish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21906 of 2021 Applicant :- Nitish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶3

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

¶4

This application has been file for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 02.10.2020 and cognizance order dated 18.1.2021 submitted in connection with Case Crime No. 158 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sikarganj, District Gorakhpur.

¶5

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.

¶6

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.

¶7

At 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.

¶10

Order Date :- 8.11.2021/ shiv

Nitish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitish Kumar 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

Manoj Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Manoj Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another