Dismissed

Pappu Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 May 2023CRLP/4806/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4806 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court rejected an application to quash an FIR under sections 363, 366, and 506 IPC. The bench held that a prima facie case existed and no interference was warranted under the Bhajan Lal principles.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for quashing of the FIR and restriction on arrest was dismissed. The petitioner was left free to apply for bail before the competent court.

Pappu Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4806 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Pappu Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.P.Singh, learned AGA for the State respondents.

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 19.12.2021, registered as Case Crime No. 315 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC, Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is nothing against the petitioner. He is cooperating in the investigation and he is not responsible for the same. The petitioner is being harassed by the police.

¶9

From perusal of record, we find that the FIR is of December, 2021 and regarding an incident dated 18.12.2021, the FIR was lodged on the very next date on 19.12.2021 specifically naming only the petitioner herein.

¶10

Learned AGA submits that investigation is pending and a cognizable offence has been made out.

¶11

Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 3.5.2023 Pratima

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pappu Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Prajapati 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kasturi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Kant Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahnawaz @ Shahnawaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Maharajiay Sonkar Alias Maharajin Sonkar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Murasleen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others