The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad held that no legal infirmity was apparent in the order summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.PC, thus refusing to quash it. The Court also refused specific directions on bail, relying on guidelines by the Apex Court.
Prayer for quashing refusing and direction on bail not issued.
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. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3512 of 2022
Revisionist :- Lokendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This present revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 23.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Hathras in Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2019 (State Vs. Arvind and others) whereby revisionist has been summoned on an application under Section 319 Cr.PC. to face trial under Sections 307, 302/34 I.P.C.Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any legal infirmity in the order which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the revisionist and there may be coercive processes issued against the revisionist by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the revisionist.
As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court
concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.
With the aforesaid observations, the revision is disposed off. Order Date :- 9.9.2022 S.Ali
Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.09.13 17:43:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was any legal infirmity in the impugned order summoning the revisionist warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Whether the High Court should issue specific directions to the lower court regarding the consideration of the bail prayer pending arrest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶11
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
