Pawan Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5200 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Pawan Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 February, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22858
 
Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3923 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Pawan Pratap Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A., who appears for the State.

2. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. 251 of 2024 (State Vs. Krishna Pratap and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 05 of 2024, under Sections 323, 308, 506 IPC, P.S. Akrabad, District Aligarh as well as Charge Sheet No.36 of 2024 dated 19.01.2024 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 29.06.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though an FIR stood lodged on 02.01.2024 relatable to the commission of offences on 01.01.2024 regarding attacking with iron rods and wooden sticks. However, the injuries are simple in nature. He further submits that the applicants are innocent and the medical examination has been done on 02.01.2024, he was not involved in the incident and the injuries are simple in nature.

4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the arguments, which is being sought to be raised by the applicant centers around the factual score.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the offences are made out, particularly in view of the fact that there happens to be as many as five injuries, out of which one is just over the eye-brow and other is over lower lip, from angle of mouth (lip). The factual issues cannot be gone into the present proceedings, particularly, when the trial has not commenced, in the background of the dictum in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2021 SC 1918.

6. In view of the same, this Court declines to interfere in the present proceedings.

7. The application is accordingly consigned to record. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a direction be issued for consideration of the bail.

8. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case applicant moves appropriate proceedings before the court below for enlargement of bail, then the same may be decided with most expedition in accordance with the law of the land keeping in view the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

Order Date :- 18.2.2025

N.S.Rathour

(Vikas Budhwar, J)