In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court rejected the quashing of the charge sheet as the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. No directions were issued for bail as Apex Court guidelines suffice.
Application for quashing was rejected; disposal order mentions no need for specific bail direction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6213 of 2022
Applicant :- Vishal Rastogi And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhit Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State, SriRajesh Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record.
This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 15.3.2021 as well as the order dated 11.2.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge,Court No. 10 Moradabad in Criminal Reviaion No. 48 of 2021
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.
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.
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.
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.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 28.4.2022
RPD
Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.04.29 16:48:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer to quash the charge sheet should be allowed.
Whether direction should be issued to the lower court regarding bail prayer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶10
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishal Rastogi and 3 Others
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
