Disposed¶15

Rajendra Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2024A482/28347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing application disposed of on withdrawal; liberty to seek regular bail; charge-sheet filed without arrest; offence punishable up to 7 years; bail to follow Satender Kumar Antil (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth 2022 (11) SCC 676, Aman Preet Singh 2021 SCC Online SC 941; Criminal Case No.927 of 2023; Case Crime No.291 of 2022; Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 324 IPC; P.S. Bahariya, Prayagraj; Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 Allahabad; Rajendra Yadav; Allahabad High Court; order dated 25.11.2024.

What did the court decide?

Application permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction; any such bail application to be decided in the light of the specified Supreme Court judgments. ¶15

Rajendra Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.927 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No.291 of 2022, Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 324 I.P.C.) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 06.10.2023 should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

¶9

Court's answer

The court refused the applicants' prayer to quash the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants was permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶12

Key takeaways

If a bail application is filed, it shall be decided in the light of the observations made in the Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth v. State of U.P., 2022 (11) SCC 676, and Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, 2021 SCC Online SC 941.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.) disposed of an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.927 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime No.291 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 324 I.P.C., Police Station Bahariya, District Prayagraj) and the cognizance/summoning order dated 06.10.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad. The initial prayer was refused; counsel was then permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application, which is to be decided in the light of the observations in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2022 (11) SCC 676, and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director, 2021 SCC Online SC 941.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:184896

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28347 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to inadvertence the prayer clause has been wrongly mentioned.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to correct the same during the course of hearing.

¶8

Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rahul Pandey, brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.927 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.291 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 324 of I.P.C., Police Station- Bahariya, District- Prayagraj, as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 06.10.2023, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants were not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet have been submitted against them. It is further submitted that the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment.

¶11

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants is, hereby, refused.

¶12

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants wants to withdraw the application with liberty to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶13

In case bail application is filed by the learned counsel for the applicants, the same shall be decided in the light of the

¶14

observations made in the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 2022 (11) SCC 676 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director 2021 SCC Online SC 941.

¶15

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶16

Order Date :- 25.11.2024 Radhika

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jagnnath and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sadakat and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Murti Rai vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Sharma and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Manjul Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another