AYODHYA PRASAD v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME LKO. AND 6 OTHERS
NA528/775/2025 · 2025-07-17
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 151523 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 151523 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40903 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 775 of 2025 Applicant :- Ayodhya Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anita Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Ms. Anita, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S. P. Singh, the learned State Counsel and perused the record. 2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned charge sheet filed against the applicant in Case Crime No. 0013 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 110 B.N.S., Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh. 3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the correctness of the allegations made against the applicant and has only to examine whether on the basis of the allegations made and material collected during investigation, the offences are made out against the applicants or not. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 379 has held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient
material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not". 5. Confronted with the aforesaid legal position, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicant may be permitted to surrender and move an application, before the court concerned seeking bail and suitable directions may be issued that same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law. 6. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of by observing that in case the applicant appears and files an application for his release on bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I., (2021) 10 SCC 773.
Order Date :- 17.7.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench