Dismissed

Santosh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2022A482/15748/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR, charge sheet, and cognizance. Court found allegations disclosed cognizable offence. Bail directions deemed unnecessary as Supreme Court guidelines apply.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; bail consideration to be handled according to Supreme Court guidelines by concerned court.

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15748 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvanand Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been filed for quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 13.1.2019 along with cognizance and summoning order dated 16.5.2019 passed by C.J.M. Gorakhpur in Crl. Case No. 3738 of 2019 (State Vs. Bechan Gupta and Ors.) in case crime No. 341 of 2018, under section 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC P.S. Chauri Chaura,, District Gorakhpur.

¶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 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.

¶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 :- 10.8.2022

¶13

RPD

¶14

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.08.10 17:33:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar and Another 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

Vishal and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Moinuddin Vs State of U.P.and Another

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

Pratap Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another