Allowed

Vidhi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2022CRLR/3258/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a temporary order disposing of a criminal revision filed under sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., the single judge held that no legal infirmity existed in the challenged summoning order. The court deferred the bail application to the lower court, citing prevailing Supreme Court guidelines, before allowing disposal of the revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision disposed by rejecting prayer to quash summoning order and deferring bail consideration to lower court.

Vidhi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3258 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Vidhi Opposite Party : - State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashi Kumar Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This revisionist under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 1.6.2022 passed by A.S.J./ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahr in S.S.T. No. 1301 of 2021 (State Vs. Rahul) arising out of case crime No. 693 of 2021 under sections 376(3), 120-B, 328/34, 506 IPC and section 3/4/16 POCSO Act, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandsahar.

¶7

On perusal of the record, the Court finds that there is no legal infirmity in the order impugned, which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under revisional jurisdiction, therefore, the prayer to quash the impugned order and the consequential proceeding is rejected.

¶8

At this stage, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the revisionist and there may be coercive processes issued against the revisionist by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the revisionist.

¶9

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.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the revision is disposed off.

¶11

Order Date :- 5.12.2022 RPD

¶12

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.12.06 12:18:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vidhi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamshad @ Sansar Ali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Indrajeet and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nauratan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Prajapati @ Kallu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chandra Kala Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another