Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22653 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2239 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravindra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants who are four in number and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.14849 of 2024 (State Vs. Ranindra and others), arising out of case crime no.164 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 352, 427, 308, 325, 34 of IPC Police Station- Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the offences have sought to be shown under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 352, 427, 308, 325, 34 of IPC being FIR No. 0164 of 2024 dated 04.04.2024 but the said allegations cannot be termed to be an outcome of any offences, particularly, when it was a scuffle or a difference between the two students faction. He further submits that the injuries so sought to be sustained by Shivam, Manish, Amit, Om Prakash, Srishti and Manju were there but as per the medical examination at page 143 of the paper book, the medical practitioner/ doctor opined that Srishti, Manju, Amit and Manish were subjected to medical examination and they were only found to have sustained simple injuries, whereas Om Prakash only sustained a fracture in his one of the fingers and Shivam sustained simple injuries on head. He submits that though in the FIR allegation was referable to Section 308 IPC but there is nothing on record to show that on any vital part, the said injuries were sought to be effectuated. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated and it is a case of malicious prosecution. 4. Learned AGA submits that injuries have been sustained though with respect to other fracture but commission of the offences stands made out from the narration of the facts in the FIR and charge-sheet. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. After perusing the first information report and the charge-sheet and also giving anxious consideration to the arguments made and documents available on record, I am of the opinion that offences are made out and it may be said to be that there was a scuffle or a dispute between the two factions that too of children who were of the tender age but the same cannot be a ground to overrule the fact that offences have been made out. Further injuries are there, so far as the non-involvement of the applicant is concerned, the same is only a defence which can only be taken when the trial commences and the said stage has not yet come. In absence of showing of any jurisdictional error, this Court is not required to go into factual aspects as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192. 7. Accordingly, the application stands consigned to record. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land. 9. Having considered the said aspect, this Court is of the opinion that in case, the application for enlargement on bail is preferred then the same shall be decided with most expedition looking into the aspects relating to the subjects. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad