SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJEEV MISRA, J.
Manoj Gupta @ Manoj Kumar Gupta - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 706 of 2021 with Application U/S 482 No. 19101 of 2020
Decided On : 28-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Shashank Tripathi, Atharva Dixit, Manish Tiwary.
For the Opposite Parties : Manish Tandon, Rakesh Dubey.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 22(1) and clause (1) of Article 22 and 15-A - Criminal procedure Code,1973 – Sections 482, 173(2), 167 (2) and 57 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34, 120B - Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 7 - Claiming default bail – Offence of murder – Attempt to murder - Applicant application filed by aforesaid applicant has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time - As such, on instructions received by him, he does not wish to press application – Held, Court on behalf of first informant that charge sheet has been submitted against applicant within 90 days from date subsequent to the order of remand is wholly misconceived and is of no help to the state or opposite party 2 - Application allowed

ORDER :

(Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ramesh Chandra Agrahari, the learned counsel for applicant-Asim @ Pappu Smart, Mr. Sayed Imran Ibrahim, the learned counsel for applicant-Manoj Gupta @ Manoj Kumar Gupta, Mr. Manuraj Singh along with Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Rakesh Dubey, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 in both the applications.

2. Perused the record.

3. Mr. Sayed Imran Ibrahim, the learned counsel for applicant-Manoj Gupta @ Manoj Kumar Gupta submits that the application filed by aforesaid applicant has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time. As such, on instructions received by him, he does not wish to press the application.

4. Learned A.G.A. for state and Mr. Rakesh Dubey, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 have no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for applicant-Manoj Gupta @ Manoj Kumar Gupta.

5. Consequently, Application under 482 Cr.P.C. No. 706 of 2021 (Manoj Gupta @ Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another) is dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

6. Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 Cr.PC No. 19101 of 2020 (Asim @ Pappu Smart Vs. State of U.P. and another) has been filed by applicant Asim @ Pappu Smart challenging the order dated 01.10.2020 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 15681 of 2020 (State Vs. Mohd. Asif @ Pappu Smart and Others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34, 120B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No. 425 of 2020 (State Vs. Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 307, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar, whereby the application for default bail filed by applicant has been rejected. Consequently, applicant, who is in custody, has been denied default bail.

7. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 20.06.2020, a prompt F.I.R. dated 20.06.2020 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Dharmendra Singh Sengar and was registered as Case Crime No. 425 of 2020 (State Vs. Mohd. Asim @ Pappu Smart) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., six persons, namely, Mohd. Asif @ Pappu Smart, Saud Akhtar, Deenoo Upadhyay, Aridaman Singh, Mahfooz Akhtar and Manoj Gupta have been nominated as named accused, whereas certain unknown persons have also been arraigned as accused.

8. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R is to the effect that named accused alongwith their associates conspired/committed the crime in question by using firearm on account of which, one Pintoo Sengar sustained firearm injury and died on the spot.

9. After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. He first took possession of the dead body of the deceased and accomplished the preliminary formality. Thereafter, a detailed police scroll was prepared and the dead body of the deceased was dispatched for postmortem on 20.06.2020. Accordingly, post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted on the same day i.e. on 20.06.2020. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem firearm injuries

10. Subsequent to above, Investigating Officer proceeded to undertake other formalities. Attempts were made to secure the arrest of named accused. Information appears to have been received by Investigating Officer that applicant, who is a named accused in concerned case crime number, is residing at Chindwara, Madhya Pradesh, Accordingly, Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top