Disposed

Ram Mohan and 10 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024/1766/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a criminal case, the applicant counsel withdrew merit. The High Court disposed of the application, granting leave to file a bail application, promising expeditious hearing and deciding in accordance with relevant Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file bail application with direction to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ram Mohan and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18830

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1766 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Mohan And 10 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the Criminal Case No.4141 of 2017 arising out of Chargesheet No.92 of 2017 in pursuance of the Case Crime No.290 of 2016 under Sections 147, 352, 323, 336, 295A, 296 IPC, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Hargaon, Sitapur pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (J.D.)-I, Sitapur. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated.

¶8

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the correctness of the allegations made against the applicants and has only to examine whether on the basis of the allegations made and material collected during investigation, the offences are made out against the applicants or not.

¶9

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh , 2023 SCC Online SC 379 has held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or

¶10

not".

¶11

6. Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicants may be permitted to surrender and move an application, before the court concerned seeking bail and suitable directions may be issued that same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law.

¶12

7. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of by observing that in case the applicants appear and file an application for their release on bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. , (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 prateek

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Mohan and 10 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mohan and 10 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharath Lal Bajpai @ Bharat Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shanu @ Shan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lucknow and Others

Mohammad Ashraf Husain and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

M/S S.V. Eccentrics Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Mr. Manish Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nayum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bachcha Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another