The High Court quashed an order under Section 482 CrPC allowing anticipatory bail. The court held that the order was passed mechanically by filling blanks without applying judicial mind, rendering it unsustainable.
Order dated 28.9.2021 allowing anticipatory bail was quashed; matter remanded for fresh order applying judicial mind.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4348 of 2022
Applicant :- Kallu @ Shekh Kallu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Garg Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
vkosndx.k dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0&111 lu~ 2021] vUrxZr /kkjk 323] 504] 506 Hkk0na0fo0 ,oa 3(2)(V)a S.C.S.T. Act, Fkkuk dksrokyh uxj] ftyk ckWnk esa izsf"kr vkjksi i= fn0 18&3&2021 ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 238 lu 2021] tks Lis’ky tt] ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,sDV] ckWnk ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr rych vkns’k fn0 28&9&2021 dh laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh dks vikLr djus gsrq nk;j fd;k x;k gSA
vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd vkosnd ds fo:) /mijksDr /kkjkvksa dk dksbZ vijk/k ugha curk gS] voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr rych vkns’k fn0 18&3&2021 ,d izksQkekZ vkMZj gS] ftlesa fd ,d Nis&Nik, izksQkekZ ij dsoy frfFk Hkjds rych vkns’k ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gS] bl izdkj rych vkns’k ikfjr djus esa fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk vius LoLFk efLr"d dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS] blfy, mijksDr okn dh dk;Zokgh dks vikLr dj fn;k tk;A vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020 (11) ADJ 615 esa ikfjr fof/k O;oLFkk dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd"V fd;k] ftlds izLrj 18 esa fuEufyf[kr rF; mn~/kr fd, x, gSa %&
"Although as held by this Court in the case of Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826, in which reference has been made to the cases of Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4^) ACC 686 (SC), UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 and Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC), the Magistrate is not required to pass detailed reasoned order at the time of taking cognizance on the charge sheet, but it does not mean that order of taking cognizance can be passed by filling up the blanks on printed proforma. At the time of passing any judicial order including the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the Court is required to apply judicial mind and even the order of taking cognizance cannot be passed in mechanical manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be sent back to the Court below for passing fresh order on the charge sheet after applying judicial mind."(Emphasis supplied)
eSaus vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ,oa iz’uxr vkns’k dk ifj’khyu fd;kA
i=koyh ds ifj’khyu ls ,slk ik;k x;k fd lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; }kjk iz’uxr vkns’k fizUVsM izksQkekZ ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa dsoy frfFk Hkj nh x;h gS ,oa vkns’k ikfjr djus esa lacaf/kr eftLVzsV }kjk U;kf;d efLr"d dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS] tks fd vkifRrtud gSA fdlh nkf.Md okn esa rych vkns’k fd;k tkuk ,d xaHkhj ekeyk gS] ftls fo}ku eftLVzsV }kjk cgqr gh lksp le>dj ml ij vius U;kf;d efLr"d ls vkns’k ikfjr djuk pkfg,A
rn~uqlkj ;g /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr nk;j ;g vkosnu i= vaxhdj.k ds Lrj ij gh] fcuk foi{kh la0 2 dks uksfVl tkjh fd, gq,] Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk okn la0 238 lu 2021] tks Lis’ky tt] ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,sDV] ckWnk ds U;k;ky; esa yfEcr gS rFkk blesa ikfjr rych vkns’k fn0 28&9&2021 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS] ,oa izdj.k dks muds le{k bl funsZ’k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns’k esa mfYyf[kr fdlh Hkh fVIi.kh ds xq.k&nks"k ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk] i{kdkjksa dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj nsrs gq, ,oa i=koyh dk lE;d :is.k voyksdu djus ds mijkUr] izdj.k ij mfpr vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tk;A
dk;kZy; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns'k dh ,d izfrfyfi lacaf/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks vfoyEc Hkstuk lqfuf'pr djsA
fn0 % 6&7&2022 ds0lh0flag
2 of 2
Digitally signed by KAILASH CHANDRA SINGH Date: 2022.07.06 17:38:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order taking cognizance passed by merely filling blanks on a printed proforma without applying judicial mind is unsustainable under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the impugned order allowing anticipatory bail by filling blanks constitutes mechanical action violating judicial discretion.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and anotherFollowed¶6
Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020 (11) ADJ 615
Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And AnrRelied on¶8
Megh Nath Guptas & Anr V State of U.P. And Anr, 2008 (62) ACC 826
Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal AgarwalRelied on¶8
Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4^) ACC 686 (SC)
UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan MeakinsRelied on¶8
UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins, 2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456 · Who else cites this
Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West BengalRelied on¶8
Kanti Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) JIC 751 (SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kallu @ Shekh Kallu and 2 Others
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
