Dismissed

Mehraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2022A482/2852/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under the U.P. Gangster Act, finding the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. The court declined to issue specific bail direction, referring to Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings and charge sheet rejected. No specific direction issued for bail consideration.

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

¶1

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2852 of 2022 Applicant :- Mehraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Haya Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This application has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. 323 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 0271 of 2019 under Section 2/3 of U.P.Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act, 1986 Police Station Kakrauli, District Muzaffar Nagar pending before learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/ADJ, Court No.5, District Muzaffar Nagar as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 02.07.2020 and also to quash the cognizance order dated 08.02.2021.

¶5

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.

¶6

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.

¶7

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 applicants.

¶8

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.

¶9

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off. Order Date :- 6.4.2022/S.Ali

¶10

Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.04.07 13:51:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mehraj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehraj 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

Hari Shankar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Others

Tabassum Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shraddha Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Om Singh Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Rahim Uddin @ Shanoo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sharan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another