Disposed¶15

Mohd Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025A482/22436/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing application dismissed by refusal and withdrawal; Case Crime No. 2864 of 2023; Case No. 18 of 2020; Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC; P.S. Kareili, District Allahabad; cognizance/summoning order 22.09.2023; Judicial Magistrate IV Allahabad; charge-sheet without arrest; offence punishable up to 7 years; liberty to file regular bail; Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 category A; interim bail without physical custody; Allahabad High Court; Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori; disposed 5.2.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to withdraw the application and to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction. ¶15

Mohd Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to withdraw the application and to file a regular bail application before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Case No. 18 of 2020 (State Vs. Mohd. Ahmad) arising out of Case Crime No. 2864 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kareili, District Allahabad, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.09.2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate-IV, Allahabad, ought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶9

Court's answer

Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant (to quash the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order) is hereby refused.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

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

¶12

Key takeaways

In case a regular bail application is filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, the same shall be decided in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, regarding category (A) accused against whom a charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.), Application U/S 482 No. 22436 of 2024, decided 5.2.2025: Section 482 CrPC application by Mohd. Ahmad to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 18 of 2020 (State Vs. Mohd. Ahmad), arising out of Case Crime No. 2864 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kareili, District Allahabad, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.09.2023 of the Judicial Magistrate-IV, Allahabad. Counsel noted no arrest during investigation, charge-sheet filed, offence punishable up to 7 years. The court refused the prayer; on further arguments the application was withdrawn with liberty to file a regular bail application, which any competent court is to decide in the light of the Supreme Court's category (A) observations in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (accused appearing after charge-sheet submission may have bail considered without physical custody or with interim bail till decision). Application disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16338

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22436 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

Sri Wasi Abbas, Advocate holding brief of Sri Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.N. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. 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 Case No. 18 of 2020, (State Vs. Mohd. Ahmad) arising out of Case Crime No. 2864 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kareili, District- Allahabad, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 22.09.2023 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, IV, District Allahabad.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not arrested during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted against him. 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 applicant is, hereby, refused.

¶12

After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant 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 observations made in the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Supreme Court considering the category(A) as mentioned in the paragraph no. 2, bail applications of such accused against which

¶14

charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided. It has been observed that at the cost of repetition, we wish to state that, in category A, one would except a better exercise of discretion on the part of the court in favour of the accused.

¶15

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Ishan

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Ahmad 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

Sunil Sonkar vs State of U.P.

Smt Girja Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Anita Devi vs State of Up and 6 Others

Nahar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Pal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ambarish Alias Bijali Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another