Disposed

Devi Sharan Mishra v. State of Up Thru Prin Secy Home and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2022/79/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and summoning order, the single judge court refused the prayer, noting sufficient prima facie material exists. However, invoking Supreme Court precedents on speedy bail, the court directed the trial court to consider and decide any bail application filed within 15 days expeditiously within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings refused; directions issued for expedited consideration of bail plea if filed within 15 days.

Devi Sharan Mishra Vs State of Up Thru Prin Secy Home and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 79 of 2022 Applicant :- Devi Sharan Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thru Prin Secy Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.

¶4

By filing this 482 Cr.P.C. petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 673/2019 "State Vs. Nand Kishore alias Nanha and others" arising out of case crime No. 1337/2017, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich as well as impugned charge sheet dated 01.12.2018 submitted in case crime No. 1337/2017 and impugned summoning order dated 11.01.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid First Information Report and the Investigating Officer without investigating the case in right perspective has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has also committed a manifest illegality in taking the cognizance of the offence and issuing the process against the petitioner, while it was evident that there is no sufficient material against the petitioner.

¶6

It is further submitted that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the petitioner are nothing but the abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the charge sheet as well as the summoning order whereby the petitioner was summoned be quashed.

¶7

Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 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, thepetition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶8

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

¶9

made out against the petitioner. 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. 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, 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.

¶10

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶11

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) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 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.

¶12

In view of above decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts, the petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court that if the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 15 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law within seven days thereafter.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.1.2022 R.C.

Devi Sharan Mishra v. State of Up Thru Prin Secy Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Sharan Mishra v. State of Up Thru Prin Secy Home and Another

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

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