Dismissed

Govind Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt of U.P Civil Secy and Anoth

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2022/100/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the court refused to quash criminal proceedings arising from an electricity act case. It held that disputed factual questions cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The court directed the applicant to surrender within four weeks to avail expeditious bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings refused. Applicant directed to surrender and apply for bail within four weeks.

Govind Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 100 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Govind Prasad Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt Of U.P Civil Secy And Anoth Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings of Special trial No.1038 of 2018 State vs. Govind Prasad Shukla, arising out of Case Crime N.0120 of 2018 under section 135 Indian Electricity Act, P.S. Sidhauli, district Sitapur and impugned summoning order dated 3.12.2018.

¶7

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for applicants submits that grievance of applicants would be sufficiently met in case bail application of applicants is considered expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶8

It is further submitted that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the applicants is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the impugned criminal proceedings be quashed.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicants on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma,

¶12

1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.

¶13

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings is hereby refused.

¶14

A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.

¶15

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the applicants surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, the Court blow will consider the same and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously, say within a period of two weeks from the date of surrender of the applicants, in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.1.2022 kkb/

Govind Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt of U.P Civil Secy and Anoth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt of U.P Civil Secy and Anoth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Shadab and Ors. Vs State of Up and Anr.

Sakeena Bano and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Lko and Anr.

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.Pthru Prin Secy Home and Another

Kali Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vikas Singh Alias Rajan Singh and Anoth Vs State of U.P.Thru. Its Prin.Secry.Deptt.Home Civilsecrt.Lko and Anoth

Smt. Farzana and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Homeand Another