Dismissed

Padeep Kumar Majhwar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022CRLP/8838/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal miscellaneous writ petition where petitioner sought continuation of FIR inquest despite matrimonial dispute and failure to deposit admitted amount, leaving bail matters open for competent court. Order dated 11.11.2022.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed writ petition, leaving open application for anticipatory bail/bail before competent court.

Padeep Kumar Majhwar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8838 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Padeep Kumar Majhwar And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Smt. Richa Dixita,Sudhir Dixit

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

By order dated 08.10.2021, the matter was referred to mediation and reconciliation center as there is matrimonial dispute. Thereafter the petitioners have moved application for extension of time, which was accepted inspite of the fact hat admitted amount has not been deposited.

¶6

On the matter being taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is not having any instruction in the matter.

¶7

In the facts and cricumstances of the case, this Court find no reason to further extend the time for deposit of amount. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.1058/79-V1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019 and therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021 , no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

¶8

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

¶9

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and the same are left open for the petitioners to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

¶10

This order has been passed with due assistance of Shri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for informant.

¶11

Order Date :- 11.11.2022 A. Pandey

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND PANDEY Date: 2022.11.14 16:57:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Padeep Kumar Majhwar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padeep Kumar Majhwar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Suhel (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh Patel and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Ali @ Kamal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Uday Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others