Dismissed

Manoj Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2021A482/7021/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet in an IPC 376 case, the High Court refused to quash the FIR where allegations supported material evidence. The Court declined to issue specific bail directions, relying on Apex Court guidelines, and disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge sheet and cognizance order rejected; no specific bail directions issued.

Manoj Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7021 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 1.1.2019 as well as its cognizance order dated 24.1.2019 in Case No. 816 of 2019, (State Vs. Manoj Sharma), arising out of case crime no. 314 of 2018, under section 376 IPC, P.S. Shahganj,, District Agra pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-III, Agra.

¶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 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 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 RPD

Manoj Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Sharma 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

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

Manoj Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another