Dismissed

Wahid Ansari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2022A482/873/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of the cognizance order and criminal proceedings. The court rejected the quash prayer as the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. The court also declined to issue a specific bail direction, referring to existing Apex Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge sheet and proceedings was rejected; no specific direction on bail was issued.

Wahid Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 873 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Wahid Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been filed for quashing of the impugned cognizance order dated 17.8.2021 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No 2569 of 2021, case crime No. 48 of 202, under sections 147, 308, 504, 304 IPC, P.S. Dhanapur, District Chandauli, pending before the court of C.J.M. Magistrate, Chandauli.

¶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 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.

¶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 :- 13.4.2022

¶13

RPD

¶14

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.04.13 17:36:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Wahid Ansari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wahid Ansari 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

Arjun Bind and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt Reeta Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akshay Lal Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mayur Wadhwani and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another