Disposed

Imran v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2022A482/16090/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the application for quashing proceedings is not a fit case due to factual disputes and evidence appraisal requirements, but granted a two-week abeyance on the non-bailable warrant and directed consideration of bail upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Quashing prayer refused; non-bailable warrant kept in abeyance for two weeks; applicant directed to surrender and apply for bail.

Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16090 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Shama Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet dated 18.12.2011 in Case crime No. 111 of 2011, under sections 3/5A/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and section 34 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Agra and the cognizaance order dated 11.1.2012 pending in the court of Special C.J.M. Agra.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

¶8

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials brought on record, it does not appear to be a fit case praying for quashing of impugned order. The prayer praying for quashing of same is hereby refused, at this stage as the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

¶9

However, looking at the nature of offence alleged and attending facts and circumstances of the case, as have been brought on record, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within two weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

¶10

For a period of two weeks from today, the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.

¶11

The present application stands disposed of .

¶12

Order Date :- 11.8.2022

¶13

RPD

¶14

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.08.12 08:41:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Imran v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

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

Sahab Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamta Prasad @ Dablu Sonkar Vs State of U.P.