Dismissed¶¶12

Bharatlal Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2025NA528/3329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of Section 408 IPC criminal proceeding refused; S.528 BNSS application; FIR No.0092 of 2023 under Sections 408, 420, 328, 34 IPC (offence 05.06.2023); charge sheet 05.07.2024 under Section 408 IPC; Criminal Case No.23302 of 2024; Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Fatehpur; P.S. Aung; Bharatlal Sharma v. State of U.P.; contentions factual; consigned to record; bail direction per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; order date 17.2.2025; 2025:AHC:22040.

What did the court decide?

Quashing application consigned to record (refused); direction that any bail proceedings moved by the applicant before the court below be decided expeditiously in accordance with law keeping in view Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. ¶¶12

Bharatlal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22040

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3329 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Bharatlal Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyarth Agarwal,Siddharth Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Siddharth Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer, who appears for the State of U.P.

¶7

This is an application U/s 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the proceeding of Criminal Case No.23302 of 2024, State of U.P. Vs. Bharatlal Sharma, arising out of Case Crime No.92 of 2023, under Section 408 IPC, P.S. Aung, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Fatehpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though initially an FIR under Section 408, 420, 328 and 34 of IPC stood lodged against the applicant and unknown persons being FIR No.0092 of 2023 relatable to the commission of offence on 05.06.2023 and the charge sheet was submitted on 05.07.2024 under Section 408 IPC.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not misappropriated the amount in question. He further submits that the applicant is innocent as it is apparent that the offences under said Sections are not made out. It is further submitted that there happens to be an affidavit at page-129, which shows that such money was not handed over to the applicant. Further submission is that he was putting on the intoxication stage, the case is nothing but a malicious prosecution.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that might be charge sheet had been submitted under Section 408 IPC, but the offences stands made out, particularly in view of the fact that at the present stage in the proceeding, the affidavit, which is being sought to be relied by the applicant cannot be given credence.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the offence stands made out under Section 408 IPC and further the contentions raised by the applicant revolves around the factual score.

¶12

The application is accordingly consigned to record . At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a direction be issued to the court below for consideration of the bail.

¶13

This Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case applicant moves appropriate proceedings before the court below for enlargement of bail, then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with the law of the land keeping in view the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2022) 10 SCC 51 ..

¶14

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 N.S.Rathour

¶15

(Vikas Budhwar, J)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bharatlal Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharatlal Sharma 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