Quashing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. partly allowed. Proceedings not quashed as FIR disclosed offence; bail not quashed. No direction needed for bail as Apex Court guidelines apply.
Proceedings not quashed; bail not quashed; no direction needed for bail as Apex Court guidelines exist.
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. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2291 of 2022
Applicant :- Anurag And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Kumar Singh,Dharnidhar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 1216 of 2020 (State Vs. Anurag and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 35 of 2019, under Sections 336, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, District Basti pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti as well as charge-sheet dated 27.03.2019 and cognizance order dated 17.03.2020.
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.
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 partly allowed.
Order Date :- 30.3.2022 Abhishek Singh
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.03.31 15:11:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings should be allowed in light of pending bail prayer.
Whether direction needed from this Court for bail given Apex Court guidelines.
Whether allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence warranting rejection of quashing prayer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶11
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
Anurag and 3 Others
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
