Dismissed

Vipin Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2022A482/2786/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order and charge-sheet. The court held that the conduct of a cognizable offence was disclosed in the FIR and supported by investigation material. Regarding bail, the court invoked no direction based on Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; prayer for specific direction on bail denied.

Vipin Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2786 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vipin Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar 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 impugned summoning order dated 09.02.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, District Bijnor in Criminal Case No.448 of 2021 (State Vs. Arun Kumar and another) arising out of Case Crime no. 144 of 2020, under sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 352 IPC, P.S. Nagina Dehat, District Bijnor, as well as charge-sheet dated 14.08.2020, pending in the court Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, District Bijnor.

¶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 applicants.

¶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

¶11

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.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off. Order Date :- 4.4.2022 Saif

¶13

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.04.05 09:59:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vipin Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar and Another 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

Maan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mainuddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Archana Shukla @ Archana Mishra Vs State of U.P.and 6 Others

Chhedi Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Sithlesh Singh and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Surendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another