Dismissed

Munendra @ Munendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2022A227/1314/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for default bail. The Court observed that the charge sheet was filed within the 90-day period following the petitioner's judicial remand, rendering the bail application non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition under Article 227 dismissed as the charge sheet was filed within the 90-day period from remand.

Munendra @ Munendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 80 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1314 of 2021

¶2

Petitioner :- Munendra v@ Munendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶5

Perused the record.

¶6

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26.4.2020, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in Case Crime No. 18 of 2020, under sections 498A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station- Shahabad, District Rampur, whereby application dated 25/26.4.2020 filed by petitioner, seeking default bail has been rejected, on the ground that same is not maintainable and the order dated 22.12.2020, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court ( Crime against Women) in Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2020 (Mundndra @ Mundndra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others), whereby aforesaid criminal revision arising out of order dated 26.4.2020, has been rejected.

¶7

At the very outset, learned A.G.A. contends that an F.I.R. dated 14.1.2020 was lodged by respondent-3 which was registered as Case Crime No. 18 of 2020, under sections 498A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station- Shahabad, District Rampur. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely, Munendra, Swaraj Singh, Suneeta, Dushyant have been nominated as named accused.

¶8

Subsequent to aforesaid F.I.R., petitioner was arrested on 23.1.2020. Thereafter, petitioner was remanded to judicial custody vide order dated 23.1.2020. Investigating Officer, upon completion of investigation of aforementioned case crime number prepared charge sheet dated 25.4.2020 and same was submitted in Court on 27.4.2020. It is thus contended that since the charge sheet has already been filed before the expiry of a period of 90 days, calculated after the petitioner was sent to judicial remand, no case under section 167 (2)(a) is made out. He, therefore submits that present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

When confronted with above, learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.

¶10

In view of above, present petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 8.7.2022

¶13

Arshad

¶14

Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.07.12 18:23:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munendra @ Munendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munendra @ Munendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Hasan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nakeem Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep @ Sandeep Singh Kushwaha Vs State of Up through Principal Seceratary Home Lucknow and Another

Bitu @ Praval Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another