High Court disposal of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of charge sheet. Court rejected quashing prayer as FIR disclosed offence but declined to issue specific bail directions, referring to Apex Court guidelines.
Application for quashing rejected; no specific bail directions issued.
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. - 2355 of 2022
Applicant :- Raj Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 4.2.2019 and cognizance order dated as well as entire proceedings of Special Case No. (State Vs. Abhimanyu Singh @ Dimpal and others), arising out of case crime No. 91 of 2018, under sections 147, 186, 189, 353, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)Da, Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Nadigaon, District Jalaun pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai.
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 disposed off.
Order Date :- 19.4.2022
RPD
Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.04.20 11:11:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for quashing of charge sheet and cognizance under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be allowed given the existence of cognizable offence.
Whether specific directions regarding bail need to be issued considering the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶10
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
Raj Kumar And 2 Others
State Of U.P.
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
