Allahabad High Court
Zeeshan vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 7 July, 2022
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7984 of 2022 Petitioner :- Zeeshan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tahira Kazmi,Saiful Islam Siddiqui,Saqib Meezan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 11.6.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0118 of 2022, under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 201, 511, 307, 332, 333, 353, 395, 435, 436, 427, 504, 505(2), 506, 120-B IPC, Section 4, 5 of The Explosive Substance Act 1908, Section 7 of The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932, Section 83 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 and 3/4 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984, Police Station- Khuldabad, District- Prayagraj (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest or harass the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report."
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the entire allegations in the FIR against the petitioner are false and concocted and had been levelled only because the petitioner is resident of Atala area where the alleged incident dated 10.06.2022 took place. The entire prosecution story is unreliable and it is not possible for a person to identify 70 persons with their names among 5000 persons as alleged in the FIR. Lastly, it has been contended that the petitioner has no criminal history apart from the present case.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.
Heard rival submissions and perused the record. The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.1058/79-V-1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019 and therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 7.7.2022 A.K.Srivastava