Dismissed

Mahboob v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2022/1184/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order and stay of proceedings. The court granted liberty to the applicant to file a bail application in the trial court, which would be decided expeditiously according to the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file bail application in the trial court to be decided expeditiously; petition disposed of.

Mahboob Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1184 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mahboob Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as perused the record.

¶6

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed to quash / setaside the impugned summoning order dated 04.04.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/ F.T.C. Balrampur in Complaint Case No.16/2017, Under Section 336, 352, 452, 323, 504, 506, 391 I.P.C., Nasir Versus Mohammad Ali & Others, Police Station - Gaura Chauraha, District - Balrampur. It has further been prayed to stay entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that no reason has been mentioned in the petition that why the petitioner / applicant has falsely been implicated by the complainant in the present case. It is further submitted that the summoning order has been issued after the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and from perusal of the complaint and the statements, prima facie, the offence is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that these disputed questions of fact which could be adjudicated only after adducing the evidence. Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶9

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press the petition and seeks liberty to file bail application before the learned trial court which may be decided in view of law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 7.10.2021 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021 Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties', it is provided that in case, the petitioners appear before the trial court within fifteen days' from today and file bail application, the same shall be decided expeditiously in view of law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another (supra) .

¶12

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.3.2022 S. Kumar

¶14

Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.16 16:45:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahboob v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahboob v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home 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

Mohd. Naseem and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Dept. of Home and Another

Devi Gharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Ji Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home and 3 Others

Manoj Verma and Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Ashok Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another