Disposed

Avinash Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2024A482/2144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash summoning order in a cheque bounce case. Applicant sought leave to surrender and file a bail application which may be heard expeditiously. Court disposed of the application allowing the bail prayer.

What did the court decide?

Issue of permission to appear and file bail application to be considered expeditiously.

Avinash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22408

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2144 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Avinash Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sandhya Singh,Jaya Dixit,Nandini Gupta

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

1. Heard Ms. Sandhya Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I and perused the record.

¶9

2. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 16.10.2023 along with proceedings of Criminal Case No.85063 of 2023: Mohammad Hussain Vs. Avinash Singh, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶10

3. 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 applicant 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 applicant or not.

¶11

4. 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 not".

¶12

5. Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicant 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.

¶13

6. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of by observing that in case the applicant appears 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 .

¶14

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 14.3.2024 Ram.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Avinash Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

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

Abdul Raees Alias Danish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Master Xxx Thru. His Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Sangam Kumar Verma @ Sangam Verma Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

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