Disposed¶9

Ved Prakash and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2025CRLA/8451/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of chargesheet and cognizance order refused; FIR disclosed cognizable offence supported by investigation material. Offences: Ss.147, 323, 504 IPC and Ss.3(2)(5)A, 3(1)Da, Dha SC/ST Act; Case Crime no. 504 of 2023, PS Amroha Dehat, District Amroha; Sessions Trial No. 273 of 2024. Bail liberty: surrender/appear within 30 days; bail to be considered per Satendra Kumar Antil (SLP(Crl.) 5191/2021) guidelines. Single judge (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.), Allahabad High Court, order dated 7.8.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with liberty to the appellants to appear before the court below within 30 days and apply for bail, to be considered in light of the Satendra Kumar Antil guidelines; prayer for quashing of chargesheet and cognizance order refused. ¶9

Ved Prakash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 03.01.2024 and the cognizance order dated 20.05.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 273 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime no. 504 of 2023) ought to be quashed.

¶6

Court's answer

The allegations made in the first information report disclose commission of a cognizable offence, and those allegations find support from the material collected during investigation, on the basis of which the police laid a charge sheet against the appellants.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for quashing the chargesheet as well as the cognizance order stands refused.

¶7

Key takeaways

Protective direction: if the appellants appear before the court below within 30 days and apply for bail, the bail application shall be heard and disposed of in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil (SLP(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021); no specific direction need be issued by this Court.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:134333; decided 7.8.2025) in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8451 of 2024, Ved Prakash And 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another: quashing of the chargesheet dated 03.01.2024 and cognizance order dated 20.05.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 273 of 2024 (State Vs. Ved Prakash and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 504 of 2023 under sections 147, 323, 504 IPC and sections 3(2)(5)A and 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, PS Amroha Dehat, District Amroha, was refused. The Court held that the FIR allegations disclosed a cognizable offence and were supported by investigation material on which the charge sheet was laid. The appellants were permitted to appear before the court below within 30 days and apply for bail, to be heard per the guidelines in Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI (SLP(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021). Application disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134333

¶2

Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8451 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Ved Prakash And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been filed for quashing of the cognizance order dated 20.05.2024 as well as chargesheet dated 03.01.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 273 of 2024 (State Vs. Ved Prakash and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 504 of 2023, under sections 147, 323, 504 IPC and section 3(2)(5)A and section 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station, Amroha Dehat, District Amroha pending in the court of Addl. District and Session Judge/Spl. Judge (SC/ST Act) Amroha.

¶7

On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the allegations made in the first information report disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support from the material collected during the course of investigation on the basis whereof the police has laid a charge sheet against the appellants.Therefore, prayer for quashing the chargesheet as well as cognizance order stand refused.

¶8

At this stage, in case appellants appear before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in the light of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 28.07.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the 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.

¶9

With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.

¶10

Order Date :- 7.8.2025/RPD

¶11

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ved Prakash and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Prakash and 4 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