Dismissed

Mohd Haneef and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2025NA528/781/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS application dismissed as infructuous; exemption from filing certified copy of impugned CJM Rampur remand order dated 20.09.2024 not granted; 14-day remand period expired; Crime No. 247 of 2024, P.S. Azimnagar, District Rampur; offences under BNS Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 103, 61(2), 352 & 7 CRLA; applicants Mohd Haneef And 2 Others; opposite party State Of U.P. And 2 Othe

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohd Haneef and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 781 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd Haneef And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Applicants-Mohd Haneef And 2 Others, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following relief:-

¶8

"It is, therefore Most respectfully prayed this Hon'ble Court may graciously be that pleased to allow this application and exempt the applicant from filing the certified copy of impugned order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned C.J.M. District Rampur, in Crime No 247 of 2024 registered Under Section 191(2), 191 (3), 190, 109, 103, 61(2), 352 of BNS & 7 CRLA, Police StationAzimnagar, District- Rampur, before the registry of this Hon'ble Court and the same shall be filed before this Hon'ble Court as per the order of this Hon'ble Court to meet the ends of justice."

¶9

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that by means of impugned order, applicant were given in remand for a period of 14 days. The order impugned was passed on 20.09.2024. As such, the period of remand has already come to an end. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that present application has now been rendered infrastructure.

¶10

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record, but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record. As such, no

¶12

good ground exists to entertain the present application.

¶13

As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

¶14

It is, accordingly, dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Imtiyaz

¶16

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Haneef and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohd Haneef and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yamin vs State of U.P.

Manoj vs State of U.P. and Another

Naimuddin and Another vs State of Up and Another

Narendra Alias Kaley and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mintoo and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev vs Smt Mithlesh Devi