Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 101814 (ALL)

SANDEEP v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/22092/2025 · 2025-09-24

J J Munir, Pramod Kumar Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22092 of 2025 Court No. - 42 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Mr. Lakshman Prasad Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition at great length and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned FIR dated 07.09.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 121 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 127(6), 115(2), 352, 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Paraur, District Shahjahanpur. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the role assigned to the petitioner is one of exhortation and that of assault has been assigned to the other accused. The assault involved is one using firearms and one of the victims has been abducted. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's complicity in the crime is absolutely not there because the Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage shows him not present. He further urges that at the relevant time, the petitioner was present at Bareilly, where he has his residence and employment also. We are afraid that in offences of the present kind, the disputed defence that the petitioner puts forward, cannot be examined in a writ petition questioning the first information report. The offence has to be investigated and the accused brought to justice. Of course, if the petitioner is charge-sheeted, he can put forward all his defences at the trial. He may Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lakshman Prasad Ojha, Praveen Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sandeep .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) also invoke his remedies of bail and anticipatory bail in order to safeguard his liberty. However, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petition is summarily dismissed. September 25, 2025 Brijesh Maurya CRLP No. 22092 of 2025 2 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad