Dismissed

Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2022A482/16093/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application for quashing the summons and charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC, noting allegations of a cognizable offence were supported by evidence. The court declined to issue specific bail directions, referencing Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the summons order and charge sheet rejected; no specific direction issued regarding bail.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16093 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pragya Pandey,Mehul Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 11.5.2022 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, Pilibhit as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 899 of 2022 State Vs. Kuldeep Singh, under sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 7/8 POCSO Act and section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and section 3(2)Va SC/ST Act arsing out of case crime no. 359 of 2021, PS. Bilsanda, District Pilibhit.

¶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 applicant submits that the applicant has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicant and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicant by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶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 :- 11.8.2022

¶13

RPD

¶14

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.08.12 08:41:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh 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

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

Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another

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