Dismissed

Ayaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023CRLP/593/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under various IPC and SC/ST Act sections. The Court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence with corroborated medical and statutory evidence, citing Supreme Court precedents that no case was made out for interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR dismissed; petitioner advised to apply for anticipatory bail or bail before competent court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 593 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Ayaz Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Singh Parmar,Anurag Kumar,Mohammad Arif Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajendra Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anurag Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the State respondents.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the First Information Report dated 02.01.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 003 of 2023 under Sections 376, 377, 384, 506 I.P.C., & 3(2)(V) SC & ST (P.A.) Act, I.P.C. Police Station-Noorpur, District-Bijnor. Further prayer has been made not to harass the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R., which discloses cognizable offence and submits that the medical examination as well as the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim corroborates the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Order Date :- 1.2.2023/SY

¶12

Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ayaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayaz Ahmad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shubham and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sarvar Alam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arafat Alam Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shama @ Kajal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vinay Sachan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others