Disposed

Sunita Jha and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022A482/8455/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the applicant's prayer to quash the charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C., noting that FIR allegations supported by investigation material disclose a cognizable offence. The Court declined to issue specific bail directions as Supreme Court guidelines suffice.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge sheet and consequential proceedings was rejected; no bail directions issued.

Sunita Jha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8455 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sunita Jha And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brahma Nand Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 04.10.2021, cognizance order dated 10.01.2022 passed by A.C.J.M.-V, Vanarasi as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 3211 of 2022 (State Vs. Rahul Anand and others) arising out of case crime No. 61 of 2020, under sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC, P.S. Laxa, District Varanasi.

¶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 :- 11.7.2022

¶13

RPD

¶14

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.07.11 15:14:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunita Jha and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Jha 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

Shairun Nisha and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

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

Kaptan Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Altamish @ Altasim Vs State of Up and Another

Sanjeev Nagar Vs State of U.P and Another

Ajay Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another