Dismissed

Matloob v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022A482/7326/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet was rejected as allegations disclosure a cognizable offence. The court refused specific directions on bail, relying on Apex Court guidelines, and disposed of the application without arrest or coercive processes being mentioned.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge sheet rejected; no specific directions on bail issued; applicant's bail prayer asked to be considered by lower court.

Matloob Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7326 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Matloob Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant today, which is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 7.09.2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 2020, under section 420 IPC, P.S. Bhagatpur, District Muradabad (State Vs. Matloob) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Thakurdwar, District Moradabad.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 applicant.

¶11

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 28.07.2021) 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.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

¶14

RPD

¶15

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.12.15 17:45:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Matloob v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matloob 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

Mahendra Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mukul Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Ahirwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Raja and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another