Dismissed

Ambika and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2025A482/4129/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash criminal proceedings for offences punishable up to 7 years, the High Court refused the quashing prayer. The application was disposed of subject to the liberty to file a regular bail application following Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Quashing prayer refused; application disposed of with liberty to file regular bail under Satender Kumar Antil guidelines.

Ambika and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77450

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4129 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ambika And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajnish Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajnish Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Karunakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2995 of 2024 (State Vs. Ambika and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 308 of I.P.C., Police StationShahjahanpur, District- Jhansi as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 03.09.2024, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Moth, District Jhansi.

¶8

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.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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 judgment 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 charge-sheet has been submitted on appearance may be decided without the accused

¶12

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 expect a better exercise of discretion on the part of the court in favour of the accused.

¶13

The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 MAA/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ambika and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambika and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Surendra and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohar Singh Alias Pinki and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Shekhar Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Bilal vs State of U.P.

Ashok Alias Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others