Single judge quashed an application to quash the summoning order as allegations disclose a cognizable offence supported by investigation. Directions on bail were rejected as Apex Court guidelines suffice.
Quashing of summoning order rejected. No specific directions regarding bail issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11864 of 2022
Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Rastogi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 04.01.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, District Etah in S.T. No. 316 of 2015 (State Vs. Ram Dulare and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 2013 under Sections 302, 329, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Aliganj, District Etah pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 08, District Etah.
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 applicants, thereafter the applicants have been summoned.
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.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.
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.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 18.7.2022 S.Ali
Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.07.19 10:16:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the crpc 482 power is required to assess correctness of investigation material to quash summoning order.
Whether directions regarding bail are needed before the lower court after Apex Court guidelines.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶10
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajay Kumar Rastogi and 2 Others
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
