Disposed

Radheshyam v. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home and Anr.

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2022/1052/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a Section 482 CrPC petition. After noting submissions and a related interim order, the court allowed liberty to file a bail application before the trial court, which would be decided within ten days, citing relevant Supreme Court law.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to file bail application before trial court; bail application to be decided within 10 days.

Radheshyam Vs State of U.P. through its… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1052 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Radheshyam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary, Home And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 516 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 427 IPC, relating to P.S. Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, court no. 27, Barabanki and also for quashing of summoning order dated 09.05.2019 and the impugned order of Bailable Warrant dated 25.02.2020 and also the impugned order dated 02.03.2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Barabanki.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case as there is dispute of pathway on which the family of the complainant had made an encroachment and on the complaint of the petitioner, after an enquiry, the encroachment was removed and in retaliation, a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the co-complainant/co-accused in the complaint has also approached this Court by filing a petition U/S 482 bearing No. -1418 of 2021 (Saheb Lal Dhiman @ Saheb Lal vs. State of U.P. and Another) wherein this Court vide its interim order dated 18.03.2021 has provided that no coercive measures be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the summoning order dated 09.05.2019. Copy of the order is enclosed as Annexure no. 13 to this petition.

¶7

On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the summoning order passed by the court below is after prima facie satisified by recording the statements of the complainant and two witnesses under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. respectively and it is an admitted case that the dispute is going on between the parties and there are chances of occurrence of such incident. The interim order dated 18.03.2021 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1418 of 2021 (Annexure no. 13 to the petition) filed by the co-complainant/co-accused, in which the main reason for providing protection is that he is a Principal in Government Inter College at Rudra Prayag, State of Uttrakhand and he on the date of alleged incident (at Barabanki) was present in his College and therefore, it was not possible for him to commit the offence whereas, there is no such plea, as taken in the present petition.

¶8

Learned AGA further submits that these disputed questions of fact which could be adjudicated only after adducing the evidence. It is further submitted 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 petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶9

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press the petition and seeks liberty to file bail application before the learned trial court which may be decided in view of law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 7.10.2021 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021 Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another .

¶10

Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties', it is provided that in case, the petitioners appear before the trial court within fifteen days' from today and file bail application, the same shall be decided within a period of ten days thereafter, in view of law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another (supra).

¶12

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.3.2022 Nitesh

¶14

Digitally signed by NITESH KUMAR TEWARY Date: 2022.03.11 09:46:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Radheshyam v. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam v. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home and Anr.

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

Pravesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Rubina Anjum and Others Vs State of Up Thru. Prin.Secy. Dept, of Home and Another

Sardar Satnam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Kashi Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Sangram Singh @ Sangram Verma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another