Disposed

Irshad and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024A482/21252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants under the Cow Slaughter Act sought quashing of dismissal of anticipatory bail and continuation of earlier interim bail orders. The court disposed of the Section 482 application, directing the trial court to decide bail on its merits considering that they were never arrested and were on bail during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to take a conscious decision on the applicants' bail application considering their non-arrest and bail during investigation.

Irshad and Another vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144857

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21252 of 2024 Applicant :- Irshad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the order dated 03.06.2024 passed in Case No.900 of 2024 (State Vs. Dillu @ Dilshad and others), arising out of Case Crime No.118 of 2023, under Section 3/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Lohiya Nagar, District Meerut and extend the anticipatory bail orders dated 30.11.2023 and 23.11.2023 granted earlier by the court below in favour of the applicants.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants states that the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants has been erroneously dismissed by the trial court. The applicants were on bail during investigating, therefore, there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the same.

¶8

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to take a conscious decision on the bail application of the applicant, if presented, considering: (i) the applicant was not arrested by the police during investigation, (ii) no purpose would be served to send the applicant in the judicial custody; and (iii) the judgments passed by the Supreme Court shall also be considered by the Court.

¶9

Needless to say that when the applicants were on bail during the investigation, there is no reason for the court to take the applicants in custody and thereafter ask to furnish the regular bail bond. If, this happens to be allowed in each and every case, this amounts to violation of fundamental rights as well as directions issued by the Supreme Court time and again.

¶10

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Atul

¶11

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irshad and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Shivani and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Kuraisha Ne Arti and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Bhavana and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Nibha Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Munesh and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Neetu and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others