Dismissed

Sharik Quraishi Kasai v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2021ABAIL/13248/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the High Court rejected the plea of the applicant, Sharik Quraishi Kasai, seeking bail in a case involving sexual assault. The court held that the applicant's role requires a thorough investigation by the IO, negating the need for judicial interference at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected.

Sharik Quraishi Kasai Vs State of U.P and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13248 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sharik Quraishi Kasai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present application the applicant, Sharik Quraishi Kesai is seeking his anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.133 of 2021, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Nauchandi, District-Meerut.

¶7

From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting her anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 03.06.2021.

¶8

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶9

The applicant is named accused person who has been made accused of sexual assault by the informant. Contention raised by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a young lad of 20 years and he has made this misadventure of committing sexual assault upon a girl of 30 years. The investigation is going on and it would not be proper for the Court to interfere in the same.

¶10

Taking into account the role attributed to the applicant in commission of offence, the Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Thus, I do not find any good reason to exercise power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicant and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED.

¶11

Order Date :- 26.7.2021 Abhishek Sri.

¶12

Digitally signed by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi Date: 2021.07.26 17:59:40 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sharik Quraishi Kasai v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharik Quraishi Kasai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvesh Devi Vs State of U.P.

Devicharan Vs State of U.P.

Madan Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Kumar Singh @ Shani Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ajeet Yadav Vs State of Up

Surendri & Another Vs State of U.P. and Another