Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 146003 (ALL)

AJAY KUMAR MAURYA v. THE STATE OF U.P. and ANR.

A482/7869/2016 · 2025-04-17

Salil Kumar Rai

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21812 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7869 of 2016 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. List has been revised. No one appears for the applicant. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet bearing No. 22 of 2013 dated 6.2.2013 in Case Crime No. 635 of 2012, Police Station- Thakurganj, District-Lucknow as well as summoning order dated 1.12.2016 under Section 420 I.P.C. pending in the court Special A.C.J.M. (CBI) AP, Lucknow. It has been pleaded in the affidavit and application that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Certain documents and statements in support of the contention have been referred in the affidavit and application. Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The submissions made by the counsel for the applicant relate to disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 BNSS is disposed of with a direction to the court below that if the applicant applies for bail before the Court concerned, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observations made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351: (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Musheer Alam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicant in the aforesaid case. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Anurag/- Digitally signed by :- ANURAG KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench