Dismissed

Sabir Ali @ Bade Munna and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2022A482/3603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the quashing of a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a 498-A IPC case. The court held allegations are supported by material. It declined to issue specific directions regarding bail, relying on existing Supreme Court guidelines instead, and disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of proceedings rejected; no specific bail direction issued.

Sabir Ali @ Bade Munna and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3603 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sabir Ali @ Bade Munna And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Salman Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been filed for quashing of the Criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6812 of 2021 State Vs. Imran Ali and others, arising out of case crime no. 14 of 2021, under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Orai, District Jalaun pending in the out of C.J.M.Jalaun at Orai.

¶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

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 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.

¶12

Order Date :- 21.4.2022

¶13

RPD

¶14

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.04.21 17:10:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sabir Ali @ Bade Munna and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabir Ali @ Bade Munna 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

Smt. Kushnuma Bano Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary Home U.P. and another

Monika Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kailash Singh Vs State of Up through Principal Secretary Home Lko and another

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

Shambhu Nath Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another