Disposed¶18

Vakil Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2025/10523/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing application; summoning order dated 03.03.2000; Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich; Complaint Case No. 1927 of 2000 (Union of India Vs. Vakeel); P.S. D.R.D.I., District Lucknow; allegations disclose cognizable offence supported by record; no assessment of correctness of allegations or reliability of investigation material; quashing prayer rejected; Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI bail guidelines; no specific direction on arrest/coercive process; application disposed off.

What did the court decide?

The allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and have found support from the material available on record. ¶11

Vakil Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 03.03.2000 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, in Complaint Case No. 1927 of 2000, and the entire proceeding therein, ought to be quashed. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and have found support from the material available on record.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to assess the correctness of the allegations and the reliability of the material collected during investigation; the prayer to quash the charge sheet and the consequential proceeding is rejected.

¶12

Key takeaways

Since the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned, no specific direction need be issued by this Court; the court concerned is expected to take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH) (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) — Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by Vakil Ahmad seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 03.03.2000 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, in Complaint Case No. 1927 of 2000 (Union of India Vs. Vakeel and another), P.S. D.R.D.I., District Lucknow, and of the entire proceeding therein. Held: on perusal of the record the complaint allegations disclose commission of a cognizable offence and find support from the material on record; in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is not required to assess the correctness of the allegation or the reliability of the material collected during investigation, and the quashing prayer was rejected. On the applicant's plea that he had not been arrested and coercive processes were anticipated, the Court, noting that the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (SLP (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021) has laid down guidelines for grant of bail, declined to issue any specific direction and expected the court concerned to apply those guidelines. Application disposed off (December 12, 2025).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10523 of 2025

Vakil Ahmad

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Another	Lko. And .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Dheeraj Srivastava

¶7

Court No. - 29

¶8

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. Tanvi Jain, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1, as well as Shri Saurabh Yadava, learned counsel for the Union of India-opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

¶10

This application has been filed for quashing of summoning order dated 03.03.2000 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, in Complaint Case No. 1927 of 2000 (Union of India Vs. Vakeel and another), Police Station D.R.D.I., District Lucknow, as well as entire proceeding of the above mentioned case.

¶11

On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support from the material available on record.

¶12

This Court in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C., is not required to assess the correctness of the allegation and the reliability of the material collected during the course of investigation, the prayer to quash the charge sheet and the consequential proceeding is rejected.

¶13

At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicant and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicant by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶14

As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021), has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the

¶15

A482 No. 10523 of 2025

¶16

¶17

statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off .

¶19

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶20

December 12, 2025

¶21

Mustaqeem

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vakil Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil Ahmad 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sarla Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Pravesh Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

Sushil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vinay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anjani Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another