Dismissed

Golu Jaiswal (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2022A482/27694/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under the Explosive Substances Act involving a minor applicant, the Court held that quashing is improper as allegations disclose a cognizable offence. The bail aspect was left to the concerned court under Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings rejected; no specific directions issued for bail consideration.

Golu Jaiswal (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27694 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Golu Jaiswal (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh 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 the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5517 of 2015 (State Vs. Golu Jaiswal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1750 of 2014 under Section 5A, 2B Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending before learned Juvenile Justice Board, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶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

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 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. Order Date :- 9.9.2022 S.Ali

¶12

Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.09.13 17:48:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Golu Jaiswal (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golu Jaiswal (Minor) 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

Illakedar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Om and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anang Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Lokendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seema Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Janak Dhari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others