Disposed¶10

Amarpal and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022A482/40389/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application refused; expeditious bail disposal direction; Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773 guidelines applied; charge-sheet dated 25.09.2021; cognizance order dated 22.04.2022; Case No. 814 of 2022; Case Crime No. 252 of 2021; Sections 147, 341, 336, 332, 504, 506, 188 IPC; Police Station S.M. South, District Shahjahanpur; Judicial Magistrate-I Shahjahanpur; Amarpal and 8 others; disposed 12.12.2022.

What did the court decide?

Direction for expeditious disposal of the applicants' bail applications in accordance with settled principles of law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court; the prayer for quashing was expressly refused. ¶10

Amarpal and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings, the charge-sheet dated 25.09.2021 and the cognizance order dated 22.04.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 252 of 2021 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants, the prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance order and the entire proceeding of the case is refused.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with a direction that if the applicants move bail applications before the court concerned, they shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with the settled principles of law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.), Application U/S 482 No. 40389 of 2022, decided 12.12.2022 — Amarpal and 8 others sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the entire proceedings, charge-sheet dated 25.09.2021 and cognizance order dated 22.04.2022 in Case No. 814 of 2022 (State Versus Amarpal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 252 of 2021 under Sections 147, 341, 336, 332, 504, 506 and 188 I.P.C., Police Station S.M. South, District Shahjahanpur, pending before Judicial Magistrate-I, Shahjahanpur. Learned counsel did not press the quashing prayer and confined the request to a direction for expeditious disposal of bail applications in view of the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773. The Court refused the quashing prayer and disposed of the application with a direction that bail applications, if moved, be decided expeditiously in accordance with settled principles propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Amarpal and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarpal and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rani and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deena Nath and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt. Rachana Rajauria Vs State of U.P. and Another

Iliyas @ Mullu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shobha Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and Another