Dismissed

Babloo @ Pankaj Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2022A482/19183/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed as FIR disclosed cognizable offence supported by investigation material. Bail prayer directed to be considered by lower court per Apex Court guidelines without specific direction from High Court.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; bail directions not issued; case directed to lower court for bail consideration per Apex Court guidelines.

Babloo @ Pankaj Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19183 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Babloo @ Pankaj Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava 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 entire proceeding of Case No. 21210 of 2021 (State Vs. Babloo @ Pankaj Singh and others) Case Crime No. 68 of 2021, under sections 323, 504, 308 IPC, P.S. Lalauli, District Fatehpur pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/ FTC Fatehpur and cognizance order dated 13.10.2021.

¶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 :- 2.8.2022

¶13

RPD

¶14

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.08.03 17:02:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Babloo @ Pankaj Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo @ Pankaj Singh and 3 Others 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

Shiv Milan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Irshad @ Irshad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dinesh Chandra Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dev Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Najiya Nijam and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others