Disposed¶12

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2025A482/5710/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench; APPLICATION U/S 482 No.5710 of 2025; Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P.; quashing charge sheet 30.05.2024 and summons 06.02.2025; ACJM-IV Unnao; Case Crime No.36 of 2024; Sections 427, 380, 504, 506 IPC; P.S. Asoha; S.482 Cr.P.C. limited jurisdiction, no mini trial; C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh; Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I.; surrender and expedited bail; disposed of; Subhash Vidyarthi J.; order dated 15.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to surrender and move a bail application before the concerned court; such application to be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law (including Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I.); merits of the quashing prayer not adjudicated. ¶12

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40243

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5710 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Bhupendra Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 30.05.2024 as well as the summoning order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Unnao in Case No.559 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.36 of 2024, under Sections 427, 380, 504, 506 I.P.C. relating to Police Station- Asoha, DistrictUnnao.

¶8

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 applicants 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 applicants or not.

¶9

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

¶10

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C 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".

¶11

Confronted with the aforesaid legal position, 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.

¶12

Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of by observing that in case the applicant appears and files an application for his 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.

¶13

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 15.7.2025 -Amit K-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ved Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ram Dev and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

M/s Mr Developers vs Brisam Retail Pvt. Ltd.

Birendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Essential Commodities and Supplies Lko and 3 Others

Deepak Singh @ Guddu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru Sec. Home Department